From Star News Online: Rouzer’s new TV ad jabs Pantano on space exploration spending
Republican congressional candidate David Rouzer’s new TV ad again
criticizes his primary opponent Ilario Pantano for his position on
future space exploration.
Pantano, an author and former Marine from Wilmington, has said he
believes having strategic control of space is important for national
security, but that he believes the United States could pay for it by
cuts to other federal agencies and programs.
Rouzer, a state senator and business consultant from Johnston County,
ends the ad by stating: “I’m David Rouzer, and I approved this message
because we’ve already been to the moon.”
Rouzer and Pantano are vying for the Republican nomination in the 7th
Congressional District. The winner of the May 8 primary will challenge
U.S. Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-Lumberton, in November.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Techniques compared to space exploration
From the Montreal Gazette: Techniques compared to space exploration
With roughly 200 active mines, quarries and sandpits in operation as of July 2010, the industry has a huge reach in Quebec. In communities across the province, nearly 900 facilities provide direct and indirect jobs for upwards of 50,000 people.
"There's no question that mining is a huge contributor to our economy and job creation in Quebec," said Dan Tolgyesi, president and CEO of the Mining Association of Quebec.
The industry employs all sorts of experts including geologists, drill technicians, trades people and a slew of engineers, university and college graduates from various disciplines.
"Engineers play an enormous role in the industry," Tolgyesi said. "From geologist, mining, processing and metallurgical engineers to mechanical and electrical engineers and computer systems experts, they're all essential."
The notion of working in the mining industry is often skewed in people's minds.
"The technology has come so far and become so advanced from the old image of miners in a pit with pickaxes," Tolgyesi said. "We have specially trained and skilled engineers and experts designing, manufacturing and operating highly mechanized equipment."
The techniques used in the industry are similar to those employed in space exploration, he added.
"Only it's more complicated in some ways because when you go to space, it's a void, but when you go underground you have to incorporate geophysics to navigate rock bodies," Tolgyesi said.
"We break the rock, drill, blast and move huge pieces of earth all while supporting the ground to prevent rock falls."
The automation incorporated into the practice of mining is nothing short of incredible and engineers play a huge role in that.
"People can now operate mines without endangering themselves," Tolgyesi said. "Sections of mines have no people working in them because the machinery is automated or is being operated remotely, which is much safer in certain circumstances."
Quebec is a huge producer of minerals such as iron, gold, copper, nickel, zinc and silver. There are also industrial and architectural stones and peat mines throughout the province.
In the near future it's likely that diamonds, lithium, rare earth elements and uranium will be mined here as well.
With roughly 200 active mines, quarries and sandpits in operation as of July 2010, the industry has a huge reach in Quebec. In communities across the province, nearly 900 facilities provide direct and indirect jobs for upwards of 50,000 people.
"There's no question that mining is a huge contributor to our economy and job creation in Quebec," said Dan Tolgyesi, president and CEO of the Mining Association of Quebec.
The industry employs all sorts of experts including geologists, drill technicians, trades people and a slew of engineers, university and college graduates from various disciplines.
"Engineers play an enormous role in the industry," Tolgyesi said. "From geologist, mining, processing and metallurgical engineers to mechanical and electrical engineers and computer systems experts, they're all essential."
The notion of working in the mining industry is often skewed in people's minds.
"The technology has come so far and become so advanced from the old image of miners in a pit with pickaxes," Tolgyesi said. "We have specially trained and skilled engineers and experts designing, manufacturing and operating highly mechanized equipment."
The techniques used in the industry are similar to those employed in space exploration, he added.
"Only it's more complicated in some ways because when you go to space, it's a void, but when you go underground you have to incorporate geophysics to navigate rock bodies," Tolgyesi said.
"We break the rock, drill, blast and move huge pieces of earth all while supporting the ground to prevent rock falls."
The automation incorporated into the practice of mining is nothing short of incredible and engineers play a huge role in that.
"People can now operate mines without endangering themselves," Tolgyesi said. "Sections of mines have no people working in them because the machinery is automated or is being operated remotely, which is much safer in certain circumstances."
Quebec is a huge producer of minerals such as iron, gold, copper, nickel, zinc and silver. There are also industrial and architectural stones and peat mines throughout the province.
In the near future it's likely that diamonds, lithium, rare earth elements and uranium will be mined here as well.
SpaceX docking mission is again delayed
From the Los Angeles Times: SpaceX docking mission is again delayed
The first launch of a private spaceship to the International Space Station has been delayed more than a week, until May 7, so engineers can test hardware and software, as well as review data.
Space Exploration Technologies Corp., better known as SpaceX, was slated to launch a craft from Cape Canaveral, Fla., on April 30 in a demonstration flight for NASA. The launch date had already been pushed back several times.
"After reviewing our recent progress, it was clear that we needed more time to finish hardware in-the-loop testing and properly review and follow up on all data," SpaceX spokeswoman Kirstin Brost Grantham said in a statement.
The unmanned docking mission to the space station is intended to prove to NASA that SpaceX's rocket and space capsule can haul cargo for the space agency now that the space shuttle fleet is retired. If successful, SpaceX would be the first private company to dock with the station.
SpaceX aims to fly its craft by the $100-billion space station and then approach it so the on-board crew can snag it with a robotic arm and dock with it.
The company, which employs about 1,800, already has a $1.6-billion contract to haul cargo in 12 flights to the space station for NASA. If the upcoming mission is successful, the company will move ahead to fulfill the contract.
SpaceX makes its Dragon capsule and 18-story Falcon 9 rocket at a facility in Hawthorne that once housed assembly on fuselage sections for Boeing Co.'s 747 jumbo jet. The hardware is put on a big rig and sent to Cape Canaveral for launches.
In December 2010, SpaceX became the first company to blast a spacecraft into orbit and have it return intact. The company has been planning the upcoming docking mission ever since.
The first launch of a private spaceship to the International Space Station has been delayed more than a week, until May 7, so engineers can test hardware and software, as well as review data.
Space Exploration Technologies Corp., better known as SpaceX, was slated to launch a craft from Cape Canaveral, Fla., on April 30 in a demonstration flight for NASA. The launch date had already been pushed back several times.
"After reviewing our recent progress, it was clear that we needed more time to finish hardware in-the-loop testing and properly review and follow up on all data," SpaceX spokeswoman Kirstin Brost Grantham said in a statement.
The unmanned docking mission to the space station is intended to prove to NASA that SpaceX's rocket and space capsule can haul cargo for the space agency now that the space shuttle fleet is retired. If successful, SpaceX would be the first private company to dock with the station.
SpaceX aims to fly its craft by the $100-billion space station and then approach it so the on-board crew can snag it with a robotic arm and dock with it.
The company, which employs about 1,800, already has a $1.6-billion contract to haul cargo in 12 flights to the space station for NASA. If the upcoming mission is successful, the company will move ahead to fulfill the contract.
SpaceX makes its Dragon capsule and 18-story Falcon 9 rocket at a facility in Hawthorne that once housed assembly on fuselage sections for Boeing Co.'s 747 jumbo jet. The hardware is put on a big rig and sent to Cape Canaveral for launches.
In December 2010, SpaceX became the first company to blast a spacecraft into orbit and have it return intact. The company has been planning the upcoming docking mission ever since.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Google Billionaires Fund Asteroid Mining Company
From Search Engine Journal: Google Billionaires Fund Asteroid Mining Company
Google billionaires Eric Schmidt and Larry Page have decided to provide funding for an interesting space exploration start-up named Planetary Resources. The new company, which is focused on natural resources and space exploration, plans to mine natural resources from asteroids and add trillions of dollars to the global GDP.
Google billionaires Eric Schmidt and Larry Page have decided to provide funding for an interesting space exploration start-up named Planetary Resources. The new company, which is focused on natural resources and space exploration, plans to mine natural resources from asteroids and add trillions of dollars to the global GDP.
In addition to the Google executives, the startup will also be funded by Microsoft’s former Chief Software Architect Dr. Charles Simonyi, Perot Group Chairman Ross Perot Jr., and Avatar movie director James Cameron. According to a recent press release, the new venture will be formally announced at the Museum of Flight in Seattle on Tuesday morning. The press release also promised to redefine natural resources and create a new industry:
“The company will overlay two critical sectors – space exploration and natural resources – to add trillions of dollars to the global GDP. This innovative start-up will create a new industry and a new definition of ‘natural resources’.
Although the idea of asteroid mining seems closer to Cameron’s popular movie Avatar than reality, this determined group believes that the investment will pay off and that a single asteroid could produce trillions of dollars of natural resources.
Michio Kaku, a physics professor at the City University of New York indicated a belief that entrepreneurs and privatization may be able to accomplish what the government cannot:
“I think private enterprise will boldly go where governments fear to tread. And I think the space program has been in purgatory in the last few years. NASA is an agency to nowhere. So, we need private enterprise, especially people with deep pockets to help jump start the program and maybe mining the heavens is just the ticket.”
Even though Google has invested company money to develop enhanced reality glasses, driverless cars, and the top-secret Google X lab, Page and Schmidt have decided to invest their own money to fund this wild start-up.
Planetary Resources: Why Are Google Billionaires and James Cameron Backing This Mysterious Space Exploration Company?
From Mobile Apps: Planetary Resources: Why Are Google Billionaires and James Cameron Backing This Mysterious Space Exploration Company?
Planetary Resources, a new private space exploration company backed by film director James Cameron, Google billionaires Larry Page and Eric Schmidt, and other top investors plans "to help ensure humanity's prosperity." But what exactly is Planetary Resources? And why is it getting backed by the heavyweights?
Planetary Resources, a new private space exploration company backed by film director James Cameron, Google billionaires Larry Page and Eric Schmidt, and other top investors plans "to help ensure humanity's prosperity." But what exactly is Planetary Resources? And why is it getting backed by the heavyweights?
While it is still rather vague what the company will do, according to a media alert uncovered by MIT's Technology Review, the new venture called Planetary Resources "will overlay two critical sectors - space exploration and natural resources - to add trillions of dollars to the global GDP." The company may seek to conduct mining operations involving asteroids, Technology Review suggests.
Other backers of the ambitious venture include Google director Ram Shriram, former Microsoft executive and veteran astronaut Charles Simonyi, and Ross Perot Jr., chairman of Hillwood and the Perot Group and son of IT magnate and former presidential candidate Ross Perot. Commercial spaceflight advocates Peter Diamandis and Eric Anderson are the company's co-chairmen. NASA's Mars mission manager Chris Lewicki is president and chief engineer of Planetary Resources. Planetary scientist and former NASA astronaut Tom Jones will serve as an advisor for the company.
Official Unveiling
Planetary Resources will be officially unveiled in a conference call on Tuesday, April 24, in the Charles Simonyi Space Gallery at the Museum of Flight in Seattle, Washington. "This innovative start-up will create a new industry and a new definition of 'natural resources'," company officials said in the statement.
Though something huge is definitely in the works, the exact nature of Planetary Resources' mission remains a mystery for now. The combination of "space exploration and natural resources" mentioned in the statement seem to indicate mining of space, but until the official unveiling on Tuesday, nothing is certain.
The notion of mining in space, however, is not without precedent. Other major efforts in this direction include Moon Express, which aims to make regular trips to mine Earth's Moon, and NASA's OSIRIS-REX, an asteroid-surveying spacecraft NASA plans to launch in 2014.
Tuesday's big unveiling of Planetary Resources will be the second billionaire-backed private space company to be unveiled within the last few months. Back in December, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen unveiled Stratolaunch Systems, a company seeking to build the world's largest airplane to serve as an air-based launch pad for sending people into space, Fox News reports.
The event on Tuesday, March 24 will be streamed, and tickets are available for purchase on the Museum of Flight's page. "A new company will be unveiling its mission to revolutionize current space exploration activities and ultimately create a better standard of living on Earth," states the museum's description of the event.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Columbia, MO: Space and Rocket Center chronicles nation's exploration of outer space
From Columbia Daily Tribune: Space and Rocket Center chronicles nation's exploration of outer space
"I have learned to use the word impossible with the greatest caution." — Wernher Von Braun
The United States' space exploration and development of intercontinental missiles was influenced by German scientific discoveries in World War II. Our space and rocket research, in turn, has led to the development of the cellphone, GPS and a multitude of devices we now consider necessary to a modern life.
The exhibit "100 Years of Von Braun: His American Journey" runs until mid-May at the U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Ala. It showcases how much we owe to Wernher Von Braun, not only for the technical achievements of NASA but also for many advances in the U.S. Army's capacity to wage war.
Hitler based many of his hopes for success on technical developments such as the V2 rockets. Von Braun and his team of 300 scientists gave him some advanced systems that were in danger of falling into the hands of the Russians at the end of the war. So Von Braun loaded his team and the parts for 200 missiles into trucks and drove west to surrender to the U.S. Army, hoping to be taken to our country. He and 118 of his team members first were settled in Texas, and in 1948, they were integrated into our missile program and later our space program.
I browsed through a series of rooms examining the discoveries and developments, all profusely accompanied by films of Von Braun, the central figure in these advances. My impression was that, without his brilliance to aid us, the Russians might have surpassed us not only in ballistic missiles but in the exploration of outer space. One video, "Dr. Space," shows how he was portrayed in Hollywood movies, one of which tried to excuse his work for Hitler. Other clips show Von Braun meeting with a series of presidents, starting with John Kennedy. Photos and stories on his private life give the impression of his being somewhat of a superman.
One of the most interesting films on display was taken aboard a shuttle as an astronaut explains how they prepare and eat food, sleep in a special container they have to crawl into and how they take a bath and use the toilet.
The team of scientists working with Von Braun was getting ready to send the Apollo astronauts to the moon when he developed the idea of a permanent showcase of the space program. Now the museum has many hands-on exhibits from the Smithsonian Institution, NASA, the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force. Inside the museum are a number of space shuttles and missiles of various sizes, and outside are a shuttle on the launching rocket and a park that includes a dozen rockets of various size and age.
Two IMAX movies are being shown, "Legends of Flight" and "Hubble." "Hubble" shows the launch of the Hubble, the development of problems that made it temporarily useless and the trips made to repair it. Special attention is given to the last trip in 2009, during which we viewed the astronauts who did the work. The most stunning part of the movie is the trip through the universe through the lens of the repaired Hubble as we moved millions of light-years within minutes.
A visit to the U.S. Space and Rocket Center is an exciting experience for all ages.
"I have learned to use the word impossible with the greatest caution." — Wernher Von Braun
The United States' space exploration and development of intercontinental missiles was influenced by German scientific discoveries in World War II. Our space and rocket research, in turn, has led to the development of the cellphone, GPS and a multitude of devices we now consider necessary to a modern life.
The exhibit "100 Years of Von Braun: His American Journey" runs until mid-May at the U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Ala. It showcases how much we owe to Wernher Von Braun, not only for the technical achievements of NASA but also for many advances in the U.S. Army's capacity to wage war.
Hitler based many of his hopes for success on technical developments such as the V2 rockets. Von Braun and his team of 300 scientists gave him some advanced systems that were in danger of falling into the hands of the Russians at the end of the war. So Von Braun loaded his team and the parts for 200 missiles into trucks and drove west to surrender to the U.S. Army, hoping to be taken to our country. He and 118 of his team members first were settled in Texas, and in 1948, they were integrated into our missile program and later our space program.
I browsed through a series of rooms examining the discoveries and developments, all profusely accompanied by films of Von Braun, the central figure in these advances. My impression was that, without his brilliance to aid us, the Russians might have surpassed us not only in ballistic missiles but in the exploration of outer space. One video, "Dr. Space," shows how he was portrayed in Hollywood movies, one of which tried to excuse his work for Hitler. Other clips show Von Braun meeting with a series of presidents, starting with John Kennedy. Photos and stories on his private life give the impression of his being somewhat of a superman.
One of the most interesting films on display was taken aboard a shuttle as an astronaut explains how they prepare and eat food, sleep in a special container they have to crawl into and how they take a bath and use the toilet.
The team of scientists working with Von Braun was getting ready to send the Apollo astronauts to the moon when he developed the idea of a permanent showcase of the space program. Now the museum has many hands-on exhibits from the Smithsonian Institution, NASA, the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force. Inside the museum are a number of space shuttles and missiles of various sizes, and outside are a shuttle on the launching rocket and a park that includes a dozen rockets of various size and age.
Two IMAX movies are being shown, "Legends of Flight" and "Hubble." "Hubble" shows the launch of the Hubble, the development of problems that made it temporarily useless and the trips made to repair it. Special attention is given to the last trip in 2009, during which we viewed the astronauts who did the work. The most stunning part of the movie is the trip through the universe through the lens of the repaired Hubble as we moved millions of light-years within minutes.
A visit to the U.S. Space and Rocket Center is an exciting experience for all ages.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
NASA Looking For Future Mars Mission Ideas
From RedOrbit: NASA Looking For Future Mars Mission Ideas
NASA, reeling from budget cuts to its space program, is planning its next Mars mission and wants help from scientists and engineers around the world to make it a reality, according to recent reports.
The research into a new Mars venture is being taken on by NASA’s Mars Program Planning Group (MPPG), with the goal of finding a relatively low-cost way to send a robotic mission to Mars by 2020, and a possible human mission in the 2030s.
But a 21 percent budget cut to planetary science put into place by President Obama’s 2013 budget could turn that dream into a nightmare real fast if aerospace engineer Orlando Figueroa, head of operations at MPPG, cannot come up with plausible solutions.
The budget constraints have forced MPPG to re-evaluate the Mars program, said John Grunsfeld, MPPG associate administrator, in a recent statement. “We’re moving quickly to develop options for future Mars exploration missions and pathways.”
“As part of this process, community involvement, including international, is essential for charting the new agency-wide strategy for our future Mars exploration efforts,” added Grunsfeld, an astrophysicist, five-time space shuttle astronaut and associate administrator for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate at the agency’s headquarters in Washington.
MPPG’s new strategy for its Mars mission will be presented at a workshop hosted by the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston in June. The workshop “will provide an open forum for presentation, discussion and consideration of concepts, options, capabilities and innovations to advance Mars exploration,” NASA said in a statement. “These ideas will inform a strategy for exploration within available resources, beginning as early as 2018 and stretching into the next decade and beyond.”
In March, the MPPG established an initial draft outline of milestones and activities that includes options for missions and sequences bridging the objectives of NASA’s science, human exploration and operations and technology.
MPPG said starting today the scientific and technical community around the world can submit their ideas online as part of NASA’s effort to find the best ideas from researchers and engineers in planetary science.
“Receiving input from our community is vital to energize the planning process,” said Doug McCuistion, director of the Mars Exploration Program at NASA Headquarters. “We’ll integrate inputs to ensure the next steps for the Mars Exploration Program will support science, as well as longer-term human exploration and technology goals.”
NASA was part of the ExoMars program, partnering with the European Space Agency (ESA), but had withdrawn earlier this year due to budget constraints. NASA and the ESA had been working on missions to send to payloads to the Red Planet in 2016 and 2018 that would have marked the first steps toward bringing Martian samples back to Earth. The ESA said it will continue to work on that program with the financial support of Russian space agency Roscosmos, with which it recently forged a partnership.
NASA officials say the ExoMars mission is a priority, but NASA needs to rethink its budgets and strategies in order to fulfill the country’s goal of one day sending humans to Mars. Any future missions will be aimed at preparing for that goal.
“What we’re really trying to do is identify architectural pathways,” Grunsfeld told MSNBC.com. “This is the kickoff.”
NASA is calling for ideas that could be adapted for a $700 million Mars mission, launched as early 2018, involving either an orbiter or a lander. Any strong ideas and concepts will be discussed at the June workshop and will hopefully become realistic mission options by August.
NASA’s $2.5 billion Mars Science Laboratory is on course to meet up with Mars in August, when it will drop a car-sized rover called “Curiosity” on the surface, where it will study the vast alien world for nearly 2 years.
Grunsfeld said Curiosity is making “rapid progress” toward reaching the Red Planet, and should arrive on August 6th.
While it is likely most of us will never see a human mission to Mars in our lifetime, the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan is giving us an idea of what it may be like on the Martian homeland. It is hosting a “Future of Space Exploration” exhibit, which includes a model of Mars and theories on what it might take and be like to live there.
For more information on NASA Mars program, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/mars
Visit: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/ for information on the forthcoming Mars mission workshop being held in June.
Source: redOrbit (http://s.tt/19mMP)
NASA, reeling from budget cuts to its space program, is planning its next Mars mission and wants help from scientists and engineers around the world to make it a reality, according to recent reports.
The research into a new Mars venture is being taken on by NASA’s Mars Program Planning Group (MPPG), with the goal of finding a relatively low-cost way to send a robotic mission to Mars by 2020, and a possible human mission in the 2030s.
But a 21 percent budget cut to planetary science put into place by President Obama’s 2013 budget could turn that dream into a nightmare real fast if aerospace engineer Orlando Figueroa, head of operations at MPPG, cannot come up with plausible solutions.
The budget constraints have forced MPPG to re-evaluate the Mars program, said John Grunsfeld, MPPG associate administrator, in a recent statement. “We’re moving quickly to develop options for future Mars exploration missions and pathways.”
“As part of this process, community involvement, including international, is essential for charting the new agency-wide strategy for our future Mars exploration efforts,” added Grunsfeld, an astrophysicist, five-time space shuttle astronaut and associate administrator for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate at the agency’s headquarters in Washington.
MPPG’s new strategy for its Mars mission will be presented at a workshop hosted by the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston in June. The workshop “will provide an open forum for presentation, discussion and consideration of concepts, options, capabilities and innovations to advance Mars exploration,” NASA said in a statement. “These ideas will inform a strategy for exploration within available resources, beginning as early as 2018 and stretching into the next decade and beyond.”
In March, the MPPG established an initial draft outline of milestones and activities that includes options for missions and sequences bridging the objectives of NASA’s science, human exploration and operations and technology.
MPPG said starting today the scientific and technical community around the world can submit their ideas online as part of NASA’s effort to find the best ideas from researchers and engineers in planetary science.
“Receiving input from our community is vital to energize the planning process,” said Doug McCuistion, director of the Mars Exploration Program at NASA Headquarters. “We’ll integrate inputs to ensure the next steps for the Mars Exploration Program will support science, as well as longer-term human exploration and technology goals.”
NASA was part of the ExoMars program, partnering with the European Space Agency (ESA), but had withdrawn earlier this year due to budget constraints. NASA and the ESA had been working on missions to send to payloads to the Red Planet in 2016 and 2018 that would have marked the first steps toward bringing Martian samples back to Earth. The ESA said it will continue to work on that program with the financial support of Russian space agency Roscosmos, with which it recently forged a partnership.
NASA officials say the ExoMars mission is a priority, but NASA needs to rethink its budgets and strategies in order to fulfill the country’s goal of one day sending humans to Mars. Any future missions will be aimed at preparing for that goal.
“What we’re really trying to do is identify architectural pathways,” Grunsfeld told MSNBC.com. “This is the kickoff.”
NASA is calling for ideas that could be adapted for a $700 million Mars mission, launched as early 2018, involving either an orbiter or a lander. Any strong ideas and concepts will be discussed at the June workshop and will hopefully become realistic mission options by August.
NASA’s $2.5 billion Mars Science Laboratory is on course to meet up with Mars in August, when it will drop a car-sized rover called “Curiosity” on the surface, where it will study the vast alien world for nearly 2 years.
Grunsfeld said Curiosity is making “rapid progress” toward reaching the Red Planet, and should arrive on August 6th.
While it is likely most of us will never see a human mission to Mars in our lifetime, the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan is giving us an idea of what it may be like on the Martian homeland. It is hosting a “Future of Space Exploration” exhibit, which includes a model of Mars and theories on what it might take and be like to live there.
For more information on NASA Mars program, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/mars
Visit: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/ for information on the forthcoming Mars mission workshop being held in June.
Source: redOrbit (http://s.tt/19mMP)
Monday, April 16, 2012
Space exploration budget cuts would doom future missions: Ralph P. Harvey
From Cleveland.com: Space exploration budget cuts would doom future missions: Ralph P. Harvey
I was 8 years old when my parents called me home from a ferocious game of "kick the can" to watch a man from Ohio take a small step . . . onto the surface of the moon. For Neil Armstrong, for me and for millions of young people around the world, it was also a giant leap -- a purposeful and inspirational step, taken by a nation choosing not only to face the challenges of the future, but also to create challenges capable of defining how one nation can lead the world.
Flash forward 50 years, and space exploration continues to inspire children to become the scientists and engineers maintaining our nation's leadership in technical fields. Whether you're considering intellectual or economic achievements, space exploration plays a key role in making the United States a superpower. It enriches us still further by instilling pride in the nation. Space exploration is one of those rare government-supported efforts with virtually no downside. Our historic achievements in space continue to be worthy of pride and prove the United States can still do what no other nation can, even when events conspire to slow us down.
In general, our government gets this. We all know space exploration can't be cheap, but steady, modest support -- in good economic times and bad -- has brought enormous positive returns. Continuing support for planetary sciences has maintained our expertise and technological leadership. It has also allowed us to send rovers to Mars to discover incredible evidence of that planet's past habitability; to capture cometary dust and bring it back to Earth; to witness water geysers erupting on Saturn's moon Enceladus; and do dozens of other absolutely incredible things, all challenging and inspiring, that no other nation has done. Almost as amazing is that these incredible discoveries, so defining of our country's technological expertise, are supported by a tiny fraction of the federal budget -- about four hundredths of one percent.
Unfortunately, this may all change if we don't take action. The administration's proposed budget for the 2013 fiscal year -- now in front of Congress -- includes a devastating 20 percent cut to planetary funding. A cut of that scale will eliminate several Mars missions, break international agreements that jointly support other missions, eliminate any large-scale "flagship" missions for the foreseeable future and force us to abandon any plans to explore the potential habitability of the "water moons" Europa and Enceladus, circling Jupiter and Saturn.
Why is it so important to fix this? Can't planetary exploration handle a little of the economic hardship the rest of us are dealing with? Answering this requires appreciation of two facts.
First is that the proposed cut is hugely disproportionate. While other agencies are being asked to stay the course or slow their growth, planetary exploration is having its guts cut out, with seemingly little regard for its extraordinary long-term value.
Second, for planetary missions (like many things in life), timing is everything. Opportunities to economically launch spacecraft to Mars, a relatively close planet, come by every two years. Opportunities to launch toward outer planets, where spacecraft may need a little gravitational assist from other planets to get there, come along on decadal or even century time scales. Similarly, you can't switch a Mars rover back on once you've turned it off and allowed it to go cold.
In a nutshell, turning off funding now, even if you mean to replace it in the next budget, is likely to kill rather than delay any typical planetary project. It is the equivalent of axing a farmer's budget in planting season; even if you restore that funding mid-summer, the harvest just isn't going to be there.
Have we, as a nation, developed enough technology? Are we done with exploring? If your answer to these questions is yes, then the cut makes sense, as does the resulting step away from U.S. leadership in planetary exploration. But I sincerely hope your answer is a resounding "no." Space exploration is no fantasy; it is something our nation does at a level other nations can only envy, and it has paid us back a thousandfold with incredible discoveries, big dreams and inspiration for new generations.
Now is exactly the wrong time to trade big dreams and inspiration for short-term frugality, and I hope you'll join me in asking Congress to restore or expand NASA's planetary science budget.
Ralph P. Harvey is an associate professor in the Department of Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences at Case Western Reserve University.
I was 8 years old when my parents called me home from a ferocious game of "kick the can" to watch a man from Ohio take a small step . . . onto the surface of the moon. For Neil Armstrong, for me and for millions of young people around the world, it was also a giant leap -- a purposeful and inspirational step, taken by a nation choosing not only to face the challenges of the future, but also to create challenges capable of defining how one nation can lead the world.
Flash forward 50 years, and space exploration continues to inspire children to become the scientists and engineers maintaining our nation's leadership in technical fields. Whether you're considering intellectual or economic achievements, space exploration plays a key role in making the United States a superpower. It enriches us still further by instilling pride in the nation. Space exploration is one of those rare government-supported efforts with virtually no downside. Our historic achievements in space continue to be worthy of pride and prove the United States can still do what no other nation can, even when events conspire to slow us down.
In general, our government gets this. We all know space exploration can't be cheap, but steady, modest support -- in good economic times and bad -- has brought enormous positive returns. Continuing support for planetary sciences has maintained our expertise and technological leadership. It has also allowed us to send rovers to Mars to discover incredible evidence of that planet's past habitability; to capture cometary dust and bring it back to Earth; to witness water geysers erupting on Saturn's moon Enceladus; and do dozens of other absolutely incredible things, all challenging and inspiring, that no other nation has done. Almost as amazing is that these incredible discoveries, so defining of our country's technological expertise, are supported by a tiny fraction of the federal budget -- about four hundredths of one percent.
Unfortunately, this may all change if we don't take action. The administration's proposed budget for the 2013 fiscal year -- now in front of Congress -- includes a devastating 20 percent cut to planetary funding. A cut of that scale will eliminate several Mars missions, break international agreements that jointly support other missions, eliminate any large-scale "flagship" missions for the foreseeable future and force us to abandon any plans to explore the potential habitability of the "water moons" Europa and Enceladus, circling Jupiter and Saturn.
Why is it so important to fix this? Can't planetary exploration handle a little of the economic hardship the rest of us are dealing with? Answering this requires appreciation of two facts.
First is that the proposed cut is hugely disproportionate. While other agencies are being asked to stay the course or slow their growth, planetary exploration is having its guts cut out, with seemingly little regard for its extraordinary long-term value.
Second, for planetary missions (like many things in life), timing is everything. Opportunities to economically launch spacecraft to Mars, a relatively close planet, come by every two years. Opportunities to launch toward outer planets, where spacecraft may need a little gravitational assist from other planets to get there, come along on decadal or even century time scales. Similarly, you can't switch a Mars rover back on once you've turned it off and allowed it to go cold.
In a nutshell, turning off funding now, even if you mean to replace it in the next budget, is likely to kill rather than delay any typical planetary project. It is the equivalent of axing a farmer's budget in planting season; even if you restore that funding mid-summer, the harvest just isn't going to be there.
Have we, as a nation, developed enough technology? Are we done with exploring? If your answer to these questions is yes, then the cut makes sense, as does the resulting step away from U.S. leadership in planetary exploration. But I sincerely hope your answer is a resounding "no." Space exploration is no fantasy; it is something our nation does at a level other nations can only envy, and it has paid us back a thousandfold with incredible discoveries, big dreams and inspiration for new generations.
Now is exactly the wrong time to trade big dreams and inspiration for short-term frugality, and I hope you'll join me in asking Congress to restore or expand NASA's planetary science budget.
Ralph P. Harvey is an associate professor in the Department of Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences at Case Western Reserve University.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Space Station Crew Set to Welcome 1st Private Cargo Ship
From Space.com: Space Station Crew Set to Welcome 1st Private Cargo Ship
Astronauts aboard the International Space Station are preparing for the historic arrival of a privately built robot cargo ship, the first ever to visit the orbiting laboratory, later this month.
California-based Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX, is scheduled to launch its unmanned Dragon capsule to the space station on April 30 on a groundbreaking mission to rendezvous and dock with the orbiting outpost. If successful, SpaceX will be the first private company to accomplish the feat.
Spaceflyers Don Pettit, of NASA, and Andre Kuipers, of the European Space Agency, will be responsible for using the space station's robotic arm to grab the spacecraft and attach it to a parking spot on the Earth-facing side of the outpost's Harmony node.
"We're just now starting to get up to speed on training for this event, and we have two primary means of training: fly the actual arm … and then right here, we've got two space station computers which double as an arm simulator," Pettit told reporters in a news briefing Wednesday morning (April 11) from aboard the space station.
The special software replicates the trajectory of the Dragon capsule, and the arm controls allow the astronauts to practice robotically latching onto it.
"It's a really neat capability," Pettit said. "I have it set up now all the time. I'll get up in the morning [and fly] track and captures with a bag of coffee in my mouth and cinnamon scone in my hand."
SpaceX is one of two commercial companies with NASA contracts to launch new unmanned cargo ships to the International Space Station. SpaceX has a $1.6 billion contract to provide 12 Dragon cargo missions to supply the station crew. The Virgina-based company Orbital Sciences was awarded a $1.9 billion contract to provide eight launches of its cylindrical robotic spaceship Cygnus to stock up the station. The first Cygnus test flight is also expected some time this year.
And while the space station residents typically keep up with current events on Earth throughout their months-long mission, the intense training to prepare for the arrival of the Dragon capsule could explain the crew's delay in hearing about Wednesday's strong earthquake off the coast of Indonesia and details of North Korea's imminent long-range rocket launch. [Images: North Korea's Rocket Program]
A magnitude 8.6 earthquake struck a region of the Indian Ocean off the western coast of Sumatra yesterday (April 11). From their orbital perch, space station astronauts often photograph natural disasters or severe weather systems for scientists to use on the ground.
But with the flurry of activity in orbit, the space station residents had been unaware of today's Indonesia quake.
"We have not heard about that, and hopefully it's limited in its impact to folks in that area," said space station commander Dan Burbank. "From our perspective here onboard the space station, there are certain times when we have the opportunity to see the results of tsunamis — results of natural disasters."
Burbank added that mission controllers on the ground will likely look for opportunities for the spaceflyers to capture views of the region later today.
North Korea is also poised to launch an Earth-watching satellite atop a long-range rocket as early as today (April 12). The controversial rocket launch has been condemned by several nations who claim the launch is a disguise for testing military missiles.
The launch is scheduled to occur sometime between April 12 and April 16.
"I'm aware a launch is being prepared," Burbank said. "Beyond that — the specifics of the launch — I, for one, am not aware of any of the details."
Astronauts aboard the International Space Station are preparing for the historic arrival of a privately built robot cargo ship, the first ever to visit the orbiting laboratory, later this month.
California-based Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX, is scheduled to launch its unmanned Dragon capsule to the space station on April 30 on a groundbreaking mission to rendezvous and dock with the orbiting outpost. If successful, SpaceX will be the first private company to accomplish the feat.
Spaceflyers Don Pettit, of NASA, and Andre Kuipers, of the European Space Agency, will be responsible for using the space station's robotic arm to grab the spacecraft and attach it to a parking spot on the Earth-facing side of the outpost's Harmony node.
"We're just now starting to get up to speed on training for this event, and we have two primary means of training: fly the actual arm … and then right here, we've got two space station computers which double as an arm simulator," Pettit told reporters in a news briefing Wednesday morning (April 11) from aboard the space station.
The special software replicates the trajectory of the Dragon capsule, and the arm controls allow the astronauts to practice robotically latching onto it.
"It's a really neat capability," Pettit said. "I have it set up now all the time. I'll get up in the morning [and fly] track and captures with a bag of coffee in my mouth and cinnamon scone in my hand."
SpaceX is one of two commercial companies with NASA contracts to launch new unmanned cargo ships to the International Space Station. SpaceX has a $1.6 billion contract to provide 12 Dragon cargo missions to supply the station crew. The Virgina-based company Orbital Sciences was awarded a $1.9 billion contract to provide eight launches of its cylindrical robotic spaceship Cygnus to stock up the station. The first Cygnus test flight is also expected some time this year.
And while the space station residents typically keep up with current events on Earth throughout their months-long mission, the intense training to prepare for the arrival of the Dragon capsule could explain the crew's delay in hearing about Wednesday's strong earthquake off the coast of Indonesia and details of North Korea's imminent long-range rocket launch. [Images: North Korea's Rocket Program]
A magnitude 8.6 earthquake struck a region of the Indian Ocean off the western coast of Sumatra yesterday (April 11). From their orbital perch, space station astronauts often photograph natural disasters or severe weather systems for scientists to use on the ground.
But with the flurry of activity in orbit, the space station residents had been unaware of today's Indonesia quake.
"We have not heard about that, and hopefully it's limited in its impact to folks in that area," said space station commander Dan Burbank. "From our perspective here onboard the space station, there are certain times when we have the opportunity to see the results of tsunamis — results of natural disasters."
Burbank added that mission controllers on the ground will likely look for opportunities for the spaceflyers to capture views of the region later today.
North Korea is also poised to launch an Earth-watching satellite atop a long-range rocket as early as today (April 12). The controversial rocket launch has been condemned by several nations who claim the launch is a disguise for testing military missiles.
The launch is scheduled to occur sometime between April 12 and April 16.
"I'm aware a launch is being prepared," Burbank said. "Beyond that — the specifics of the launch — I, for one, am not aware of any of the details."
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Humans vs. Robots: Who Should Dominate Space Exploration?
From Wired Science: Humans vs. Robots: Who Should Dominate Space Exploration?
The most recent footprints on the moon are 40 years old, and the next artificial mark on the lunar surface will probably be made by a robot’s wheels rather than human soles.
Many space scientists, engineers and politicians argue that this is a good thing. Most astronomers will tell you that virtually anything a human can do on another planet, a robot can do, only cheaper and without the risk of losing a life. But the battle between humans and robots for the starring role in the next chapter of space exploration is not yet settled.
“In what was really only a few days on the lunar surface, the Apollo astronauts produced a tremendous scientific legacy,” said planetary scientist Ian Crawford of Birkbeck College in London, author of a paper in the April issue of Astronomy and Geophysics. “Robotic exploration of the moon and Mars pales in comparison.”
Robots have done all the recent planetary exploration in the solar system. In past decades, rovers, landers, and orbiters have visited the moon, asteroids and comets, every planet in the solar system and many of their moons as well. But how does their work compare to that of human astronauts?
In terms of sheer scientific output, manned exploration of outer space has a good track record. More than 2,000 papers have been published over the last four decades using data collected during the manned Apollo missions, and the rate of new papers is still rising. In comparison, the Soviet robotic Luna explorers and NASA’s Mars Exploration rover program — Mars Pathfinder, Spirit, and Opportunity — have each generated around 400 publications.
Humans hold a number of advantages over robots. They can make quick decisions in response to changing conditions or new discoveries, rather than waiting for time-delayed instructions from Earth. They are more mobile than current robot explorers: The Apollo 17 astronauts covered more than 22 miles in three days, a distance that has taken the Mars Opportunity rover eight years to match. Humans can drill for samples deep underground and deploy large-scale geologic instruments, something that no rover has achieved on another body.
Despite these qualities, many experts are skeptical of Crawford’s argument.
“I strongly disagree with his conclusions,” wrote engineer Adrian Stoica, who supervises the Advanced Robotic Controls group at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in an email to Wired. He notes that Crawford’s paper seems to focus on cost in terms of scientific output achieved.
The Apollo program was incredibly expensive — about $175 billion in today’s money — though it was not solely a scientific mission. It was mainly a geopolitical stunt during the Cold War to show American technological superiority over Russia, with science piggybacking on the ride.
The total amount spent on science over the Apollo missions, Crawford estimates, comes to about $2.09 billion in today’s dollars, making it comparable to or even cheaper than the recent $2.5 billion Mars Science Laboratory.
But contrasting manned lunar missions with robotic Mars missions is not the right way to go, wrote Stoica. A better analysis would use the potential cost of a manned Mars mission, which NASA estimates to be at least hundreds of billions of dollars.
Crawford counters that cost is not the biggest impetus behind his analysis. Instead, he wanted to bring attention to the sheer efficiency and legacy that the Apollo program achieved during its short time. If space exploration continues to focus on sending robots to other planets, “we will learn less about the solar system in the next 100 years than we will if we engage in an ambitious program of human exploration,” he said.
Of course, humans and robots each have their own advantages for exploration of outer space.
“There isn’t a battle between robots and humans — that’s comparing apples and oranges,” said James Garvin, chief scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. “We send the robots as our pathfinders and scouts, and they open the frontiers so that we can decide where and when to send the people.”
Humans and robots already work together on Earth and in space. There are schemes that offer the advantages of human exploration without incurring as high of a cost.
“What makes robots at a distance inferior to humans is one thing only: latency,” said astronomer Dan Lester of the University of Texas at Austin.
The time it takes for a signal to travel from a robot back to mission control on Earth is a major stumbling block. Commands sent to a Mars rover take between 5 and 15 minutes. Light travel time to the moon is around 2.6 seconds.
“It takes 10 minutes to tie a knot with the Earth-moon latency,” said Lester. “But if we could bring that down to about 100 milliseconds, the robots themselves are very capable.” Teleoperated robots on the surface of another planet would have greater strength, endurance, and precision than human explorers, he added.
Teleoperation has been considered in the past for space exploration. During the Apollo era, the technology was not well developed but in the last decade, it has taken off. On Earth, surgeons in Baltimore now perform operations in Indonesia while officers in Nevada covertly spy on nuclear sites in Iran.
Lester envisions a future where astronauts camp out on Mars’ moons Phobos and Deimos and order remote-controlled robots to drive long distances over the planet’s surface, set up geologic instruments, and collect samples for analysis. He estimates this could greatly reduce costs because roughly half the price tag of a manned mission is spent on getting people down and back up the deep gravity well of a planet.
Crawford agrees such a plan would be a step beyond simply sending a robot, though perhaps less efficient than putting people on a planet’s surface.
“I think it will be strange to spend all the money to go all that way and then not land,” he said.
The most recent footprints on the moon are 40 years old, and the next artificial mark on the lunar surface will probably be made by a robot’s wheels rather than human soles.
Many space scientists, engineers and politicians argue that this is a good thing. Most astronomers will tell you that virtually anything a human can do on another planet, a robot can do, only cheaper and without the risk of losing a life. But the battle between humans and robots for the starring role in the next chapter of space exploration is not yet settled.
“In what was really only a few days on the lunar surface, the Apollo astronauts produced a tremendous scientific legacy,” said planetary scientist Ian Crawford of Birkbeck College in London, author of a paper in the April issue of Astronomy and Geophysics. “Robotic exploration of the moon and Mars pales in comparison.”
Robots have done all the recent planetary exploration in the solar system. In past decades, rovers, landers, and orbiters have visited the moon, asteroids and comets, every planet in the solar system and many of their moons as well. But how does their work compare to that of human astronauts?
In terms of sheer scientific output, manned exploration of outer space has a good track record. More than 2,000 papers have been published over the last four decades using data collected during the manned Apollo missions, and the rate of new papers is still rising. In comparison, the Soviet robotic Luna explorers and NASA’s Mars Exploration rover program — Mars Pathfinder, Spirit, and Opportunity — have each generated around 400 publications.
Humans hold a number of advantages over robots. They can make quick decisions in response to changing conditions or new discoveries, rather than waiting for time-delayed instructions from Earth. They are more mobile than current robot explorers: The Apollo 17 astronauts covered more than 22 miles in three days, a distance that has taken the Mars Opportunity rover eight years to match. Humans can drill for samples deep underground and deploy large-scale geologic instruments, something that no rover has achieved on another body.
Despite these qualities, many experts are skeptical of Crawford’s argument.
“I strongly disagree with his conclusions,” wrote engineer Adrian Stoica, who supervises the Advanced Robotic Controls group at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in an email to Wired. He notes that Crawford’s paper seems to focus on cost in terms of scientific output achieved.
The Apollo program was incredibly expensive — about $175 billion in today’s money — though it was not solely a scientific mission. It was mainly a geopolitical stunt during the Cold War to show American technological superiority over Russia, with science piggybacking on the ride.
The total amount spent on science over the Apollo missions, Crawford estimates, comes to about $2.09 billion in today’s dollars, making it comparable to or even cheaper than the recent $2.5 billion Mars Science Laboratory.
But contrasting manned lunar missions with robotic Mars missions is not the right way to go, wrote Stoica. A better analysis would use the potential cost of a manned Mars mission, which NASA estimates to be at least hundreds of billions of dollars.
Crawford counters that cost is not the biggest impetus behind his analysis. Instead, he wanted to bring attention to the sheer efficiency and legacy that the Apollo program achieved during its short time. If space exploration continues to focus on sending robots to other planets, “we will learn less about the solar system in the next 100 years than we will if we engage in an ambitious program of human exploration,” he said.
Of course, humans and robots each have their own advantages for exploration of outer space.
“There isn’t a battle between robots and humans — that’s comparing apples and oranges,” said James Garvin, chief scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. “We send the robots as our pathfinders and scouts, and they open the frontiers so that we can decide where and when to send the people.”
Humans and robots already work together on Earth and in space. There are schemes that offer the advantages of human exploration without incurring as high of a cost.
“What makes robots at a distance inferior to humans is one thing only: latency,” said astronomer Dan Lester of the University of Texas at Austin.
The time it takes for a signal to travel from a robot back to mission control on Earth is a major stumbling block. Commands sent to a Mars rover take between 5 and 15 minutes. Light travel time to the moon is around 2.6 seconds.
“It takes 10 minutes to tie a knot with the Earth-moon latency,” said Lester. “But if we could bring that down to about 100 milliseconds, the robots themselves are very capable.” Teleoperated robots on the surface of another planet would have greater strength, endurance, and precision than human explorers, he added.
Teleoperation has been considered in the past for space exploration. During the Apollo era, the technology was not well developed but in the last decade, it has taken off. On Earth, surgeons in Baltimore now perform operations in Indonesia while officers in Nevada covertly spy on nuclear sites in Iran.
Lester envisions a future where astronauts camp out on Mars’ moons Phobos and Deimos and order remote-controlled robots to drive long distances over the planet’s surface, set up geologic instruments, and collect samples for analysis. He estimates this could greatly reduce costs because roughly half the price tag of a manned mission is spent on getting people down and back up the deep gravity well of a planet.
Crawford agrees such a plan would be a step beyond simply sending a robot, though perhaps less efficient than putting people on a planet’s surface.
“I think it will be strange to spend all the money to go all that way and then not land,” he said.
Monday, April 9, 2012
America's space act is about to lift-off to a spectacular new future
From the Sacramento Bee: America's space act is about to lift-off to a spectacular new future
WASHINGTON -- Recently a group of Cub Scouts visited the Johnson Space Center in Houston. The youngsters had a memorable adventure, riding on a Lunar Rover model, scrambling around in a mock-up space capsule, and quizzing retired astronauts about living in zero gravity.
At one point, one of the boys asked, "Why has America given up on space flight?"The answer, of course, is that we're not giving up on space flight.
This Cub Scout's question illustrates the need to call attention to America's exciting plans for human space exploration.We particularly need to capture the imaginations of our young people, if they are to aspire to be the scientists and explorers of the future.
The priorities that Congress and the White House established in the landmark 2010 NASA Authorization Act set an achievable, long-range plan for America to write the next great chapter in space exploration and to create exciting new commercial ventures in low-Earth orbit.
The NASA bill was enacted with strong, bipartisan support and was followed last year by White House-congressional agreement on a responsible funding plan that set three priorities: (1), moving forward with the new heavy launch rocket and Orion crew capsule needed for deep space exploration; (2), completing the James Webb Space Telescope, which will replace the amazing Hubble Space Telescope; and (3), partnering with private space companies on new vehicles to transport astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station.
If we are to move forward, we must avoid a false competition between our long-range space exploration goals - the moon, Mars and beyond - and commercialized ferrying of cargo and crew members to the space station.
In fact, both programs are essential.
Assisting development of commercial space capabilities will eliminate America's reliance on the Russian Soyuz system for crew transportation to low-Earth orbit, while developing our next generation heavy launch capability is a necessity if we are to expand space exploration beyond Earth, to Mars and beyond.
Space exploration is not inexpensive. But the money America has spent on its space program has proven to be a wise investment.
Scientific advances for our space program have opened up revolutionary improvements in medicine, communications, weather forecasting and national security and defense intelligence.
Space technology has led to entire industries that today employ millions of Americans, such the satellite-based communication, navigation and defense industries. It has introduced hundreds of products, from micro-chip technology to MRI cancer detection equipment, which we now take for granted. One might easily ask if we can afford NOT to invest in space; risking that America would lose the next technological advances that produce the jobs for the future.
Even so, every penny we spend must be invested wisely - especially in today's economic environment. Developing a private space vehicle capable of putting a crew capsule into orbit and docking with the ISS presents significant challenges.
NASA is currently funding four potential commercial crew providers. Moving forward, NASA needs to focus its investment on only those providers that are likely to be able to provide crew transportation services by 2017.
NASA should consider identifying the strongest private firms at the earliest opportunity such that NASA's precious resources are focused on ending our reliance on the Russians for transportation to the space station as quickly as possible. The cost would be less and the returns greater.
It's vital that NASA remain committed to our national space exploration plan. If we reconfigure our priorities every few years, we will not reach our goals. Postponing our long-range space exploration program would be a terrible mistake, no less than remaining dependent on Russia to move our crew members to the space station.
In spite of the very real fiscal challenges we face, the United States can - and must - support the innovative space program that assures continuation of 50 years of leadership in space.
WASHINGTON -- Recently a group of Cub Scouts visited the Johnson Space Center in Houston. The youngsters had a memorable adventure, riding on a Lunar Rover model, scrambling around in a mock-up space capsule, and quizzing retired astronauts about living in zero gravity.
At one point, one of the boys asked, "Why has America given up on space flight?"The answer, of course, is that we're not giving up on space flight.
This Cub Scout's question illustrates the need to call attention to America's exciting plans for human space exploration.We particularly need to capture the imaginations of our young people, if they are to aspire to be the scientists and explorers of the future.
The priorities that Congress and the White House established in the landmark 2010 NASA Authorization Act set an achievable, long-range plan for America to write the next great chapter in space exploration and to create exciting new commercial ventures in low-Earth orbit.
The NASA bill was enacted with strong, bipartisan support and was followed last year by White House-congressional agreement on a responsible funding plan that set three priorities: (1), moving forward with the new heavy launch rocket and Orion crew capsule needed for deep space exploration; (2), completing the James Webb Space Telescope, which will replace the amazing Hubble Space Telescope; and (3), partnering with private space companies on new vehicles to transport astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station.
If we are to move forward, we must avoid a false competition between our long-range space exploration goals - the moon, Mars and beyond - and commercialized ferrying of cargo and crew members to the space station.
In fact, both programs are essential.
Assisting development of commercial space capabilities will eliminate America's reliance on the Russian Soyuz system for crew transportation to low-Earth orbit, while developing our next generation heavy launch capability is a necessity if we are to expand space exploration beyond Earth, to Mars and beyond.
Space exploration is not inexpensive. But the money America has spent on its space program has proven to be a wise investment.
Scientific advances for our space program have opened up revolutionary improvements in medicine, communications, weather forecasting and national security and defense intelligence.
Space technology has led to entire industries that today employ millions of Americans, such the satellite-based communication, navigation and defense industries. It has introduced hundreds of products, from micro-chip technology to MRI cancer detection equipment, which we now take for granted. One might easily ask if we can afford NOT to invest in space; risking that America would lose the next technological advances that produce the jobs for the future.
Even so, every penny we spend must be invested wisely - especially in today's economic environment. Developing a private space vehicle capable of putting a crew capsule into orbit and docking with the ISS presents significant challenges.
NASA is currently funding four potential commercial crew providers. Moving forward, NASA needs to focus its investment on only those providers that are likely to be able to provide crew transportation services by 2017.
NASA should consider identifying the strongest private firms at the earliest opportunity such that NASA's precious resources are focused on ending our reliance on the Russians for transportation to the space station as quickly as possible. The cost would be less and the returns greater.
It's vital that NASA remain committed to our national space exploration plan. If we reconfigure our priorities every few years, we will not reach our goals. Postponing our long-range space exploration program would be a terrible mistake, no less than remaining dependent on Russia to move our crew members to the space station.
In spite of the very real fiscal challenges we face, the United States can - and must - support the innovative space program that assures continuation of 50 years of leadership in space.
The splendour of space exploration
From the Oman Daily Observer: The splendour of space exploration
REFLECTION -By Dr Rajan Philips -
Space and heavenly bodies have stirred the imagination of the human mind for ages and stoked the creative impulse of science fiction writers like Jules Verne. But today, travelling into space and to the moon are accomplished facts.
Remarkably, most of the fascinating milestones that characterise the modern space age occurred in the second half of the 20th century. Outstanding of these are: the launching of the Sputnik I, the first ever artificial satellite; the historic manned space flight by Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin and the first moon landing by Apollo 11. The remarkable strides made ever since has unravelled new marvels beyond our wildest dreams.
What began as a race for prestige and supremacy in space exploration between two superpowers, the USA and the erstwhile USSR in the backdrop of the intense Cold War has fortunately blossomed today into a happy story of co-operation and understanding of these two and a number of other developed countries. The resultant progress has had astounding impact on several spheres of science and technology as well as our everyday life.
Such thoughts gain fresh relevance as we get set to celebrate the 51st anniversary of the Russian Cosmonaut Day that commemorates Yuri Gagarin’s 108 minute long space odyssey on April 12, 1961. Since last year UNO has recognised it as International Day of Human Space Flight.
Gagarin was one of the twenty elite pilots initially shortlisted in the meticulous process of choosing the first human to go into space. The number was then pruned to six. And finally Gagarin got the nod to accomplish the stupendous feat.
It won great acclaim for Gagarin. He was awarded the highest Soviet honour, Hero of the Soviet Union.
Sadly, this space hero died in his prime in 1968 when the MiG 15 training jet he was piloting crashed. However, the legend of Gagarin's courageous mission into unknown frontiers of space continues to inspire generations of space scientists and common folk alike, and has spurred progress in diverse fields of human endeavour.
Years later on April 12, 2001; Gagarin’s achievement began to be remembered in a rather novel and interesting way as Yuri's Night, an international entertainment event that has captured world attention. In2004, Yuri's Night was celebrated in 34 countries with 75 individual events in cities around the world and even in space on the International Space Station (ISS). Space exploration today has created a climate for greater international co-operation, peace and progress. More than 15 nations are actively involved in the functioning of the ISS.
Nowadays, life without satellite TV or GPS is unimaginable. We owe these to advances in space technology. The space orbits and space stations have become testing ground for many other fields, including the bio-technological and pharmaceutical industries.
Precise satellite images help us to fight against climate change, desertification and loss of biodiversity. They also enable us to understand weather patterns better and make timely and accurate weather-forecasts that minimise the risks of natural disasters.
Satellite technology has revolutionised communication and turned our world into a global neighbourhood. A couple of satellites can handle the Television and Radio needs of a whole country. Mobiles phones and the Internet that have become so indispensable, rely on geostationary satellites. Astronomy has received a tremendous boost thanks to devices like the Hubble Space Telescope and the Chandra X-ray Observatory.
Digital cameras and sophisticated medical appliances and 80 per cent of new materials developed owe their origin to research in Space Technology
REFLECTION -By Dr Rajan Philips -
Space and heavenly bodies have stirred the imagination of the human mind for ages and stoked the creative impulse of science fiction writers like Jules Verne. But today, travelling into space and to the moon are accomplished facts.
Remarkably, most of the fascinating milestones that characterise the modern space age occurred in the second half of the 20th century. Outstanding of these are: the launching of the Sputnik I, the first ever artificial satellite; the historic manned space flight by Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin and the first moon landing by Apollo 11. The remarkable strides made ever since has unravelled new marvels beyond our wildest dreams.
What began as a race for prestige and supremacy in space exploration between two superpowers, the USA and the erstwhile USSR in the backdrop of the intense Cold War has fortunately blossomed today into a happy story of co-operation and understanding of these two and a number of other developed countries. The resultant progress has had astounding impact on several spheres of science and technology as well as our everyday life.
Such thoughts gain fresh relevance as we get set to celebrate the 51st anniversary of the Russian Cosmonaut Day that commemorates Yuri Gagarin’s 108 minute long space odyssey on April 12, 1961. Since last year UNO has recognised it as International Day of Human Space Flight.
Gagarin was one of the twenty elite pilots initially shortlisted in the meticulous process of choosing the first human to go into space. The number was then pruned to six. And finally Gagarin got the nod to accomplish the stupendous feat.
It won great acclaim for Gagarin. He was awarded the highest Soviet honour, Hero of the Soviet Union.
Sadly, this space hero died in his prime in 1968 when the MiG 15 training jet he was piloting crashed. However, the legend of Gagarin's courageous mission into unknown frontiers of space continues to inspire generations of space scientists and common folk alike, and has spurred progress in diverse fields of human endeavour.
Years later on April 12, 2001; Gagarin’s achievement began to be remembered in a rather novel and interesting way as Yuri's Night, an international entertainment event that has captured world attention. In2004, Yuri's Night was celebrated in 34 countries with 75 individual events in cities around the world and even in space on the International Space Station (ISS). Space exploration today has created a climate for greater international co-operation, peace and progress. More than 15 nations are actively involved in the functioning of the ISS.
Nowadays, life without satellite TV or GPS is unimaginable. We owe these to advances in space technology. The space orbits and space stations have become testing ground for many other fields, including the bio-technological and pharmaceutical industries.
Precise satellite images help us to fight against climate change, desertification and loss of biodiversity. They also enable us to understand weather patterns better and make timely and accurate weather-forecasts that minimise the risks of natural disasters.
Satellite technology has revolutionised communication and turned our world into a global neighbourhood. A couple of satellites can handle the Television and Radio needs of a whole country. Mobiles phones and the Internet that have become so indispensable, rely on geostationary satellites. Astronomy has received a tremendous boost thanks to devices like the Hubble Space Telescope and the Chandra X-ray Observatory.
Digital cameras and sophisticated medical appliances and 80 per cent of new materials developed owe their origin to research in Space Technology
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Easter Pause
So sorry to have missed so many days of posting - unexpected family matters cropped up.
And now it's Easter, so more family matters.
Will get back on track Monday.
Thanks for your patience.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Astronaut hosts lecture on space exploration
From the South End: Astronaut hosts lecture on space exploration
Many can say they have traveled outside the country; however, most cannot say they have traveled beyond Earth. Scientific explorations being conducted by NASA are helping the international community better understand life as we know it.
As part of Vaden W. Miles Memorial Lecture March 29, Colonel Terry Virts, STS-130 pilot and lead robotic operator of Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2010, presented “Space Shuttle Mission STS-130 and Scientific Exploration on the International Space Station.”
The presentation discussed what Virts and fellow astronauts did on STS-130. AMS2 or Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer-2 was a key part of the final assembly of the International Space Station.
AMS2 will aid in discovering antimatter and dark matter, searching for strangelets and increasing the understanding of cosmic rays.Experiments regarding vaccines for salmonella and other diseases were being experimented as well as cancer treatment delivery.
“The station is built; we still have Americans there doing science and maintaining the station, so there’s a lot of work still happening there. We are out of the space shuttle assembly phase and into the operational and utilization phase,” Virts said.
Virts not only discusses the scientific explorations, but also his personal experience in space. It is common for astronauts to see a white light when they close their eyes in space due to cosmic rays. In earlier years, astronauts did not openly talk about this experience out of fear of not being able to fly, which would leave other astronauts uninformed and continuing the cycle.
“Early in the space program there was a separation between astronauts and doctors. The doctor could only tell you if you were unable to fly. Doctors are more on our side now. They are there to help fix problems and get you back in flight status,” Virts said.
“I go to a lot of these types of events, and this one was more technical than most,” said Bill Whiting, a community member and autograph collector. “At the Kennedy Space Center and other venues where you can meet astronauts you commonly get questions like: ‘What was it like to be in space?’ ‘What is it like to be an astronaut?’ This was more interesting.”
“The presentation was awesome. If all of my professors, when I was in school, were as good as this guy, I would be a whole lot smarter than I am today,” said Don Lawrenchuk, a former WSU student in the ‘70s and early ‘80s.
Lawrenchuk said that the interaction with the audience made the difference.
“He answered every question as honestly and accurately as he could,” Lawrenchuk said. “The presentation way exceeded my expectations.”
“The first and last question came from a young person, a future astronaut,” said Harriet Saperstein, chairperson at Woodward Avenue Action Association and wife of physics professor Alvin Saperstein.
Bernard Reese II, an eight-year student at the Foreign Language Immersion and Cultural Studies School, was one of many young people asking questions. Reese’s favorite part of the presentation was the question and answer section.
“I heard facts I wouldn’t have thought of asking,” Reese said. Reese is thinking about becoming an astronaut in the future, but is leaving his options open.
“Young people are what give me hope. They ask the best questions. When I get to do things like this, talk to youth, it’s very encouraging,” Virts said.
The audience included students, faculty, youth including Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America and community members. Claude Pruneau, WSU professor of physics for 20 years, was a part of the organization team that brought Virts to WSU.
Pruneau has worked on the Vaden W. Miles Memorial Lecture, which is held annually in the spring, for several years. Past hosts include Nobel Prize in physics winners. The prestigious event also honors WSU faculty and students.
”I looked forward to presentation and was not disappointed,” Pruneau said. “Seeing him in space and having him here describing what happened and what he experienced was fun and great.”
Pruneau got into the physics field because he was interested in understanding the nature of things.
“When I was young, I fantasized about being an astronaut, but I cannot spin around for more than two seconds without getting dizzy,” he said.
“I have been a space buff since I was a child. It is great the university put this on. In Michigan, we don’t have a lot of opportunities to have an astronaut come and visit,” Whiting said.
Lawrenchuk called Virts an American hero.
“Thousands apply and few are selected. He has a responsibility to share what he has learned with the rest of us. That’s what he did today. He is sharing it with the next generation,” Lawrenchuk said.
“Being an astronaut is great way to be celebrity; once you take off the blue suit nobody knows who you are,” Virts said.
Virts plans to continue with NASA.
“I believe that soon we are going to be building manned space ships that go to other planets; we already have unmanned ships. There is really exciting research, science and exploration that NASA does. It’s an exciting place to work,” he said.
“One of most important successes of the space program has been the international relation aspect. Corporations for ISS exist between the Europeans, Russians, Japanese and Canadians,” Virts said.
Virts wants students to know there are opportunities to work in the human space flight program for those in the technical, business or management fields.
The risks of being an astronaut are great, as seen with the Columbia and Challenger space shuttle explosions.
“Space flight is not safe. You just can’t call going from 0 to 17000 miles an hour into a vacuum safe. But we do as much as we can to make it as safe as possible,” Virts said.
Safety, he said, is a team effort.
“If you are an astronaut and going to fly in space you have to trust the technicians and ground crew that put your rocket together and help operate station, have done their best. The reason we have the safety records we have had is because we have such good people doing that,” Virts said.
Cost is a problem that NASA faces.
“Cost is always a huge issue in everything we do. Equipment has to be ultra-reliable and be able to work in extreme environments, often only one is build. When you try to do something technically difficult and it doesn’t work the way you thought costs can boom,” Virts said.
Virts said he hopes people got inspired and continue being interested in the exploration of space.
Many can say they have traveled outside the country; however, most cannot say they have traveled beyond Earth. Scientific explorations being conducted by NASA are helping the international community better understand life as we know it.
As part of Vaden W. Miles Memorial Lecture March 29, Colonel Terry Virts, STS-130 pilot and lead robotic operator of Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2010, presented “Space Shuttle Mission STS-130 and Scientific Exploration on the International Space Station.”
The presentation discussed what Virts and fellow astronauts did on STS-130. AMS2 or Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer-2 was a key part of the final assembly of the International Space Station.
AMS2 will aid in discovering antimatter and dark matter, searching for strangelets and increasing the understanding of cosmic rays.Experiments regarding vaccines for salmonella and other diseases were being experimented as well as cancer treatment delivery.
“The station is built; we still have Americans there doing science and maintaining the station, so there’s a lot of work still happening there. We are out of the space shuttle assembly phase and into the operational and utilization phase,” Virts said.
Virts not only discusses the scientific explorations, but also his personal experience in space. It is common for astronauts to see a white light when they close their eyes in space due to cosmic rays. In earlier years, astronauts did not openly talk about this experience out of fear of not being able to fly, which would leave other astronauts uninformed and continuing the cycle.
“Early in the space program there was a separation between astronauts and doctors. The doctor could only tell you if you were unable to fly. Doctors are more on our side now. They are there to help fix problems and get you back in flight status,” Virts said.
“I go to a lot of these types of events, and this one was more technical than most,” said Bill Whiting, a community member and autograph collector. “At the Kennedy Space Center and other venues where you can meet astronauts you commonly get questions like: ‘What was it like to be in space?’ ‘What is it like to be an astronaut?’ This was more interesting.”
“The presentation was awesome. If all of my professors, when I was in school, were as good as this guy, I would be a whole lot smarter than I am today,” said Don Lawrenchuk, a former WSU student in the ‘70s and early ‘80s.
Lawrenchuk said that the interaction with the audience made the difference.
“He answered every question as honestly and accurately as he could,” Lawrenchuk said. “The presentation way exceeded my expectations.”
“The first and last question came from a young person, a future astronaut,” said Harriet Saperstein, chairperson at Woodward Avenue Action Association and wife of physics professor Alvin Saperstein.
Bernard Reese II, an eight-year student at the Foreign Language Immersion and Cultural Studies School, was one of many young people asking questions. Reese’s favorite part of the presentation was the question and answer section.
“I heard facts I wouldn’t have thought of asking,” Reese said. Reese is thinking about becoming an astronaut in the future, but is leaving his options open.
“Young people are what give me hope. They ask the best questions. When I get to do things like this, talk to youth, it’s very encouraging,” Virts said.
The audience included students, faculty, youth including Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America and community members. Claude Pruneau, WSU professor of physics for 20 years, was a part of the organization team that brought Virts to WSU.
Pruneau has worked on the Vaden W. Miles Memorial Lecture, which is held annually in the spring, for several years. Past hosts include Nobel Prize in physics winners. The prestigious event also honors WSU faculty and students.
”I looked forward to presentation and was not disappointed,” Pruneau said. “Seeing him in space and having him here describing what happened and what he experienced was fun and great.”
Pruneau got into the physics field because he was interested in understanding the nature of things.
“When I was young, I fantasized about being an astronaut, but I cannot spin around for more than two seconds without getting dizzy,” he said.
“I have been a space buff since I was a child. It is great the university put this on. In Michigan, we don’t have a lot of opportunities to have an astronaut come and visit,” Whiting said.
Lawrenchuk called Virts an American hero.
“Thousands apply and few are selected. He has a responsibility to share what he has learned with the rest of us. That’s what he did today. He is sharing it with the next generation,” Lawrenchuk said.
“Being an astronaut is great way to be celebrity; once you take off the blue suit nobody knows who you are,” Virts said.
Virts plans to continue with NASA.
“I believe that soon we are going to be building manned space ships that go to other planets; we already have unmanned ships. There is really exciting research, science and exploration that NASA does. It’s an exciting place to work,” he said.
“One of most important successes of the space program has been the international relation aspect. Corporations for ISS exist between the Europeans, Russians, Japanese and Canadians,” Virts said.
Virts wants students to know there are opportunities to work in the human space flight program for those in the technical, business or management fields.
The risks of being an astronaut are great, as seen with the Columbia and Challenger space shuttle explosions.
“Space flight is not safe. You just can’t call going from 0 to 17000 miles an hour into a vacuum safe. But we do as much as we can to make it as safe as possible,” Virts said.
Safety, he said, is a team effort.
“If you are an astronaut and going to fly in space you have to trust the technicians and ground crew that put your rocket together and help operate station, have done their best. The reason we have the safety records we have had is because we have such good people doing that,” Virts said.
Cost is a problem that NASA faces.
“Cost is always a huge issue in everything we do. Equipment has to be ultra-reliable and be able to work in extreme environments, often only one is build. When you try to do something technically difficult and it doesn’t work the way you thought costs can boom,” Virts said.
Virts said he hopes people got inspired and continue being interested in the exploration of space.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Why Space Exploration Is a Job for Humans
From The Atlantic: Why Space Exploration Is a Job for Humans
When the Space Shuttle Atlantis rolled to a stop in July 2011, NASA bid farewell to the nation's symbol of manned spaceflight. The Obama administration has scrapped NASA's plan to return humans to the Moon by 2020, which was behind schedule because of technical and budgetary problems. As financial constraints threaten the possibility of future ventures into outer space, many in the astronomical community are advocating for the increased use of unmanned robotic space, arguing that they will serve as more efficient explorers of planetary surfaces than astronauts. The next giant leap, then, will be taken with robotic feet.
Dr. Ian A. Crawford thinks it should be otherwise. A professor of planetary sciences at Birkbeck College, London, Crawford makes the case for human space exploration in a new paper entitled Dispelling the myth of robotic efficiency: why human space exploration will tell us more about the Solar System than will robotic exploration alone, published recently in the journal Astronomy and Geophysics. If the goal of space travel is to expand our knowledge of the universe, argues Dr. Crawford, exploration will be most effective when carried out by astronauts rather than robots on the surface of a planet.
At the core of Crawford's argument is that human beings are much better at performing the type of geological fieldwork that makes planetary exploration scientifically valuable: they're faster and significantly more versatile than even the most advanced autonomous probes. "People who argue for robotic exploration argue for more artificial intelligence, the capacity for robots to make more complex decisions that somehow leads to increased efficiency," explains Crawford. "But one of the things that make them cheap is miniaturization.You can make robots more intelligent and efficient to a certain point, but they wont get smaller and therefore cheaper." With miniaturization, he explains, comes a depletion in the number of scientific instruments a probe can carry, the number of samples it can collect, and its ability to cover more ground. "
[Mars rovers] Spirit and Opportunity are fantastic things on Mars, but the fact that they've traveled as far in eight years as the Apollo astronauts traveled in three days speaks volumes." At a certain point, the costs of developing 'smarter' (but not better equipped) autonomous rovers will exceed the meager gains in scientific collection and outstrip existing scientific budgets.
The advantages of human over robot explorers are recognized in the planetary sciences community: a 2005 report by the Commission on the Scientific Case for Human Space Exploration noted that "the expert evidence we have heard strongly suggests that the use of autonomous robots alone will very significantly limit what can be learned about our nearest potentially habitable planet." Steve Squyres, the Principal Investigator for the Mars Exploration Rovers Spirit and Opportunity, conceded in his book Roving Mars that "[t]he unfortunate truth is that most things our rovers can do in a perfect sol [a martian day] a human explorer could do in less than a minute." But Crawford also expresses concerns over the capacity of robots for "making serendipitous discoveries."
"We may be able to make robots smarter, but they'll never get tot he point where they can make on the spot decisions in the field, where they can recognize things for being important even if you don't expect them or anticipate them," argues Crawford. "You can't necessarily program a robot to recognize things out of the blue."
The other downside of a shift towards robotic exploration is the decline of samples, the real meat of the planetary sciences. Robotic expeditions have always been one-way trips: the probes go, land, take readings, and don't come back. But the collection and prolonged study of planetary samples are real drivers of scientific knowledge, which Crawford measures in terms of published scientific literature:
Screen shot 2012-04-02 at 3.57.12 PM.png not included here.
Several things are immediately apparent from Figure 2. Most obvious is the sheer volume of Apollo's scientific legacy compared to the other missions illustrated. This alone goes a long way to vindicate the points made above about human versus robotic efficiency. The second point to note is that the next most productive set of missions are the lunar sample return missions Lunas 16, 20 and 24, which highlights the importance of sample return. Indeed, a large part of the reason why Apollo has resulted in many more publications than the Luna missions is due to the much larger quantity and diversity of the returned samples which, as we have seen, will always be greater in the context of human missions. The third point to note is that, despite being based on data obtained and samples collected over 40 years ago, and unlike the Luna, Lunokhod, or Surveyor publications, which have clearly levelled off, the Apollo publication rate is still rising. Indeed, it is actually rising as fast as, or faster than, the publications rate derived from the Mars Exploration Rovers, despite the fact that data derived from the latter are much more recent. No matter how far one extrapolates into the future, it is clear that the volume of scientific activity generated by the MERs, or other robotic exploration missions, will never approach that due to Apollo.
"We're still benefiting from the scientific legacy of those few soil samples brought by the Apollo mission, but we can only do this because we went to the Moon, got these samples, and came back," says Crawford. "If we sent a rover to Mars along with a return vehicle, that would enormously increase its scientific impact, but that's hasn't been implemented yet because its still incredibly expensive. If a mission goes to Mars, lands in one place, bring back half a kilogram of Mars rocks, it will be immensely valuable, but compared to Apollo, which not only visited six sites (and many hundred of sites with the help of the lunar rover) but came back with 382 kilograms of lunar material, it sort of pales in comparison."
While robotic probes find a permanent home on a planetary surface, sending manned expeditions inherently means planning for a return trip. Would a manned trip to Mars, replete with a sample-laden return vehicle, yield a similar explosion in scientific literature? Crawford thinks so. "A Martian expedition would be 5 or 10 times more expensive than Apollo in real terms, but not so much more expensive that it would negate the added benefit of being able to collect samples. They'll bring back a much larger quantity and diversity of samples than a robotic mission, and this is especially important with regards to Mars: there are reasons for wanting more lunar samples, but Mars is a much bigger and much more geologically diverse planet, with a much more complicated geology so much more inconceivably complicated history than the Moon, we won't get a full sense of its history or evolution just by scraping around on the surface with these smalls robot probes."
The scientific impact of these moon rocks is compelling: our whole chronology of the solar system is built on the radiometric dating of the Apollo samples. "The top scientific benefit is that it's been possible to date areas of the lunar surface. We have this curve that plots crater density versus age, which we can use to get an estimated age of virtually anywhere else in the Solar System," explains Crawford. "The last major eruption of Olympus Mons [on Mars] was 400 million years ago, and the only way we have this measurement is because of Apollo samples."
So why, then, are scientists resigned to sending probes and rovers to the corners of the galaxy? Scientists, argues Crawford, tend to look at the enormous costs for Apollo, which nobody will ever be able to afford again, as an artificial baseline for gradual streamlining of space exploration. This is the wrong approach to take "There's lots of collective amnesia as to how efficient Apollo really was, which is really the only example of exploring the surface of another planet," explains Crawford. "An enormous amount was achieved in a very short total contact time with the lunar surface."
But Crawford recognizes that, despite its benefits for scientific research, manned missions are subject to domestic forces and rarely undertaken for the sake of science alone. The United States was willing to shoulder the enormous costs of the Apollo mission because of the geopolitical and economic interests (namely, besting the Soviet Union), an argument advanced most recently by science communicator Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
"Science was the beneficiary of a human spaceflight mission that was undertaken for geopolitical purposes," explains Crawford. "The total costs is large, but the best way for scientists to look at it is not 'this is a science function.' They need to look at Apollo as the confluence of geopolitical, industrial, and social factors. You need all of these things to spend the money necessary."
Crawford's theory, then, is not necessarily targeted towards the general public: he recognizes the difficulty of justifying an expensive manned mission with no immediate economic benefit (although he notes notes that the 1987 NASA procurement of $8.6 billion generated a turnover of $17.8 billion and created 209,000 private sector jobs, according to an article in Nature), especially in the throes of an global economic downturn. His main argument, then is those scientists consigning themselves to a future of interstellar probes are shooting themselves in the foot. Ventures like the James Webb Space Telescope may hit the ceiling for government expenditures on purely scientific ventures, but researchers and scientists can -- and should -- try to make the case for manned spaceflight in other contexts, if only for the sake of maximizing the scientific gains made from planetary exploration.
"Humans bring a net benefit to space exploration that, in my opinion, outweighs the costs," says Crawford. "But people need to realize that the overall case for manned spaceflight is multifaceted, a totality woven out of these different strands, of which science is one. Industry, innovation, inspirational value -- all of these factors must be addressed before manned spaceflight can return."
When the Space Shuttle Atlantis rolled to a stop in July 2011, NASA bid farewell to the nation's symbol of manned spaceflight. The Obama administration has scrapped NASA's plan to return humans to the Moon by 2020, which was behind schedule because of technical and budgetary problems. As financial constraints threaten the possibility of future ventures into outer space, many in the astronomical community are advocating for the increased use of unmanned robotic space, arguing that they will serve as more efficient explorers of planetary surfaces than astronauts. The next giant leap, then, will be taken with robotic feet.
Dr. Ian A. Crawford thinks it should be otherwise. A professor of planetary sciences at Birkbeck College, London, Crawford makes the case for human space exploration in a new paper entitled Dispelling the myth of robotic efficiency: why human space exploration will tell us more about the Solar System than will robotic exploration alone, published recently in the journal Astronomy and Geophysics. If the goal of space travel is to expand our knowledge of the universe, argues Dr. Crawford, exploration will be most effective when carried out by astronauts rather than robots on the surface of a planet.
At the core of Crawford's argument is that human beings are much better at performing the type of geological fieldwork that makes planetary exploration scientifically valuable: they're faster and significantly more versatile than even the most advanced autonomous probes. "People who argue for robotic exploration argue for more artificial intelligence, the capacity for robots to make more complex decisions that somehow leads to increased efficiency," explains Crawford. "But one of the things that make them cheap is miniaturization.You can make robots more intelligent and efficient to a certain point, but they wont get smaller and therefore cheaper." With miniaturization, he explains, comes a depletion in the number of scientific instruments a probe can carry, the number of samples it can collect, and its ability to cover more ground. "
[Mars rovers] Spirit and Opportunity are fantastic things on Mars, but the fact that they've traveled as far in eight years as the Apollo astronauts traveled in three days speaks volumes." At a certain point, the costs of developing 'smarter' (but not better equipped) autonomous rovers will exceed the meager gains in scientific collection and outstrip existing scientific budgets.
The advantages of human over robot explorers are recognized in the planetary sciences community: a 2005 report by the Commission on the Scientific Case for Human Space Exploration noted that "the expert evidence we have heard strongly suggests that the use of autonomous robots alone will very significantly limit what can be learned about our nearest potentially habitable planet." Steve Squyres, the Principal Investigator for the Mars Exploration Rovers Spirit and Opportunity, conceded in his book Roving Mars that "[t]he unfortunate truth is that most things our rovers can do in a perfect sol [a martian day] a human explorer could do in less than a minute." But Crawford also expresses concerns over the capacity of robots for "making serendipitous discoveries."
"We may be able to make robots smarter, but they'll never get tot he point where they can make on the spot decisions in the field, where they can recognize things for being important even if you don't expect them or anticipate them," argues Crawford. "You can't necessarily program a robot to recognize things out of the blue."
The other downside of a shift towards robotic exploration is the decline of samples, the real meat of the planetary sciences. Robotic expeditions have always been one-way trips: the probes go, land, take readings, and don't come back. But the collection and prolonged study of planetary samples are real drivers of scientific knowledge, which Crawford measures in terms of published scientific literature:
Screen shot 2012-04-02 at 3.57.12 PM.png not included here.
Several things are immediately apparent from Figure 2. Most obvious is the sheer volume of Apollo's scientific legacy compared to the other missions illustrated. This alone goes a long way to vindicate the points made above about human versus robotic efficiency. The second point to note is that the next most productive set of missions are the lunar sample return missions Lunas 16, 20 and 24, which highlights the importance of sample return. Indeed, a large part of the reason why Apollo has resulted in many more publications than the Luna missions is due to the much larger quantity and diversity of the returned samples which, as we have seen, will always be greater in the context of human missions. The third point to note is that, despite being based on data obtained and samples collected over 40 years ago, and unlike the Luna, Lunokhod, or Surveyor publications, which have clearly levelled off, the Apollo publication rate is still rising. Indeed, it is actually rising as fast as, or faster than, the publications rate derived from the Mars Exploration Rovers, despite the fact that data derived from the latter are much more recent. No matter how far one extrapolates into the future, it is clear that the volume of scientific activity generated by the MERs, or other robotic exploration missions, will never approach that due to Apollo.
"We're still benefiting from the scientific legacy of those few soil samples brought by the Apollo mission, but we can only do this because we went to the Moon, got these samples, and came back," says Crawford. "If we sent a rover to Mars along with a return vehicle, that would enormously increase its scientific impact, but that's hasn't been implemented yet because its still incredibly expensive. If a mission goes to Mars, lands in one place, bring back half a kilogram of Mars rocks, it will be immensely valuable, but compared to Apollo, which not only visited six sites (and many hundred of sites with the help of the lunar rover) but came back with 382 kilograms of lunar material, it sort of pales in comparison."
While robotic probes find a permanent home on a planetary surface, sending manned expeditions inherently means planning for a return trip. Would a manned trip to Mars, replete with a sample-laden return vehicle, yield a similar explosion in scientific literature? Crawford thinks so. "A Martian expedition would be 5 or 10 times more expensive than Apollo in real terms, but not so much more expensive that it would negate the added benefit of being able to collect samples. They'll bring back a much larger quantity and diversity of samples than a robotic mission, and this is especially important with regards to Mars: there are reasons for wanting more lunar samples, but Mars is a much bigger and much more geologically diverse planet, with a much more complicated geology so much more inconceivably complicated history than the Moon, we won't get a full sense of its history or evolution just by scraping around on the surface with these smalls robot probes."
The scientific impact of these moon rocks is compelling: our whole chronology of the solar system is built on the radiometric dating of the Apollo samples. "The top scientific benefit is that it's been possible to date areas of the lunar surface. We have this curve that plots crater density versus age, which we can use to get an estimated age of virtually anywhere else in the Solar System," explains Crawford. "The last major eruption of Olympus Mons [on Mars] was 400 million years ago, and the only way we have this measurement is because of Apollo samples."
So why, then, are scientists resigned to sending probes and rovers to the corners of the galaxy? Scientists, argues Crawford, tend to look at the enormous costs for Apollo, which nobody will ever be able to afford again, as an artificial baseline for gradual streamlining of space exploration. This is the wrong approach to take "There's lots of collective amnesia as to how efficient Apollo really was, which is really the only example of exploring the surface of another planet," explains Crawford. "An enormous amount was achieved in a very short total contact time with the lunar surface."
But Crawford recognizes that, despite its benefits for scientific research, manned missions are subject to domestic forces and rarely undertaken for the sake of science alone. The United States was willing to shoulder the enormous costs of the Apollo mission because of the geopolitical and economic interests (namely, besting the Soviet Union), an argument advanced most recently by science communicator Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
"Science was the beneficiary of a human spaceflight mission that was undertaken for geopolitical purposes," explains Crawford. "The total costs is large, but the best way for scientists to look at it is not 'this is a science function.' They need to look at Apollo as the confluence of geopolitical, industrial, and social factors. You need all of these things to spend the money necessary."
Crawford's theory, then, is not necessarily targeted towards the general public: he recognizes the difficulty of justifying an expensive manned mission with no immediate economic benefit (although he notes notes that the 1987 NASA procurement of $8.6 billion generated a turnover of $17.8 billion and created 209,000 private sector jobs, according to an article in Nature), especially in the throes of an global economic downturn. His main argument, then is those scientists consigning themselves to a future of interstellar probes are shooting themselves in the foot. Ventures like the James Webb Space Telescope may hit the ceiling for government expenditures on purely scientific ventures, but researchers and scientists can -- and should -- try to make the case for manned spaceflight in other contexts, if only for the sake of maximizing the scientific gains made from planetary exploration.
"Humans bring a net benefit to space exploration that, in my opinion, outweighs the costs," says Crawford. "But people need to realize that the overall case for manned spaceflight is multifaceted, a totality woven out of these different strands, of which science is one. Industry, innovation, inspirational value -- all of these factors must be addressed before manned spaceflight can return."
Monday, April 2, 2012
Seeking direction for space exploration
From the Space Review: Seeking direction for space exploration
On paper, at least, NASA’s human space exploration program has a clear direction in front of it. Two years ago this month, in a speech at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, President Barack Obama gave NASA its marching orders: a human mission to an asteroid by 2025, a human mission to orbit Mars by the mid-2030s, followed by a landing on the Red Planet without a specified date, but soon enough thereafter that the now-50-year-old Obama said, “I expect to be around to see it.”
That set of goals, and the work underway on what are likely to be two of the key, if controversial, building blocks of the architecture to achieve those goals—the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket and the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) spacecraft—give the appearance that NASA is moving full stream ahead on those exploration plans. Yet may feel uneasy about that plan, unconvinced that the goals and NASA’s implementation of that presidential direction are sustainable. In an era where a flat budget is considered a fiscal triumph, can NASA find a way to fit an ambitious exploration program within a tight budget, or else come up with a compelling case for such missions that can make the public and Congress willing to loosen their pursestrings a bit?
Exploration insomnia
One person who raises questions about NASA’s approach is Steve Squyres, the Cornell University planetary scientist who is the principal investigator of NASA’s Mars Exploration Rovers (MER) mission and serves as chairman of the NASA Advisory Council. Appearing at the American Astronautical Society’s Goddard Memorial Symposium last week in the Washington, DC, suburbs, Squyres devoted his plenary talk to what he said keeps him up at night.
Sqyures said he doesn’t worry much about the perennial problem of long-term programs over shorter-term political cycles. “Losing sleep over stuff like that is like losing sleep over death and taxes: you’re going to do it, but it’s not going to do you much good.”
Squyres said he didn’t lose sleep over many of the day-to-day issues that dominate space policy debate, like the current gap in US human spaceflight capability that requires NASA to purchase seats on Soyuz flights to the ISS. “The fact that we are reliant on a foreign partner to access space right now is unfortunate, but I actually don’t lose a lot of sleep over this,” he said. “This is a temporary aberration in how we get astronauts into space.”
Likewise, he seemed satisfied with several aspects of NASA’s plan, including the development of SLS and Orion, as well as the agency’s commercial crew initiative. “I’ve become a true believer on commercial crew,” he said. While human spaceflight isn’t easy, he said that after half a century we should be at the point where crew transportation “should be routine enough that we can safely turn it over to competent commercial enterprises” and let NASA focus on exploration beyond Earth orbit.
Even the challenge of trying to do long-term missions within a political framework that functions on much shorter timeframes doesn’t faze Squyres much. “These are things that I lose some sleep over,” he said, “but to be honest, it’s always been this way, and it’s going to continue to be this way. Losing sleep over stuff like that is like losing sleep over death and taxes: you’re going to do it, but it’s not going to do you much good.”
So what issues that can be addressed keep Squyres up at night? He said it’s the lack of identification of the “next piece”, the components and systems needed to carry out human missions to destinations beyond Earth. For a mission to the Moon, he said, that would be the lander; for missions to near-Earth asteroids, it’s the life support systems needed for the multi-month voyages to the asteroid and back. “This I do lose a little sleep over,” he said.
“I do feel that, in the absence of that missing piece, it is harder than we would like it to be to clearly articulate to our stakeholders and to our workforce what the agency is trying to achieve,” he said. “In the absence of that, it makes it harder to get the job done.”
If NASA had a straightforward statement of the goals of its human space exploration program, Squyres said, “it would be a lot easier for us to clearly articulate those goals and to make those decisions going forward.”
A related, and more fundamental, issue in Squyres’s eyes is the lack of a clear statement of requirements for human spaceflight. He noted that the Mars Exploration Rovers mission had a half-page “mission success statement” that described the high-level requirements for the mission. “It provided an incredibly clear, crisp definition of what it was we were trying to do,” he said. “It lent a crystalline clarity to every single decision we ever had to make.” While there were times in the mission’s development, he recalled, they wondered if they would be able to do the mission, “there was never a moment when any of us questioned what it was we were trying to do.”
NASA’s human spaceflight program, he argued, could benefit from something similar. “I believe that if our human spaceflight enterprise has a clearer definition, something along these lines,” he said, pointing to the MER statement projected on the screen, “of what it is that we were trying to achieve, it would be a lot easier for us to clearly articulate those goals and to make those decisions going forward.”
NASA has also received that message from Sqyures through the NASA Advisory Council. One of the recommendations the council gave to NASA last month, after its most recent meeting, was to select a specific destination for human exploration, as well as the interim steps towards that long-term destination, as soon as possible. “Given the budget reality and development time for new hardware and software… now is the time to pick a specific destination in order to focus the NASA, international agencies and contractor teams on a specific destination, such as Mars,” the council’s recommendation stated.
Roadmaps and studies
Some at NASA believe they have destinations and rationale for human spaceflight clearly in place. “Why are we doing this, and where are we going?” asked Dan Dumbacher, deputy associate administrator for exploration systems development at NASA, in a panel at the Goddard Memorial Symposium after Sqyures’s speech. “Why are we doing this? Well, it’s important. It matters to everything we do.” As for destinations, he said, “We are going to Mars. We are going to destinations between here and Mars: asteroids, the Moon, whatever it might be. But we are going places.”
Regarding destinations, another NASA official, John Olson, pointed out the work done by the International Space Exploration Coordination Group, a group of 14 space agencies, including NASA, that have worked together to develop potential “roadmaps” for human space exploration beyond Earth. Its report, released last September, identifies two specific paths, both eventually leading to Mars. The main difference is the first destination beyond Earth orbit: one is an “Asteroid Next” approach that would go a near Earth asteroid, followed by the Moon and eventually Mars; the “Moon Next” alternative would start with a human return to the Moon before going to an asteroid and then Mars. “These are the amalgam of the international thought” on space exploration architectures, Olson said.
“We’re looking at a lot of options,” Dumbacher said of potential mission concepts. “We have to make sure we go through the right analysis to ferret out what the problems might be.”
Yet, it would seem that only one of those approaches, Asteroid Next, would be compatible with current US national policy as articulated by President Obama in his KSC speech two years ago. Does this create the potential for conflict should other nations decide the Moon Next approach is preferable? Olson said no, noting that the roadmaps are nonbinding documents, and that US policy is still based on going to asteroids first as part of a multi-destination approach. “The bottom line is a sustainable and affordable effort to have humans explore beyond low Earth orbit,” he said.
Olson added that NASA is working on a “180-day report” directed by Congress in the agency’s 2012 appropriations bill to refine its exploration plans, including discussions of specific destinations and objectives of future human exploration missions. That report, he said, will be completed by the end of this month. Additional internal studies are refining those exploration plans, he noted.
“We’re looking at a lot of options,” Dumbacher said. “We have to make sure we go through the right analysis to ferret out what the problems might be, what the ‘unknown unknowns’ might be, and sort through, based on our best experience and our best knowledge, how we would technically implement some of these options.”
Others are putting their hopes on an upcoming study that has been likened to a decadal study for human spaceflight. The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 directed the space agency to contract with the National Academies in fiscal year 2012 for “a review of the goals, core capabilities, and direction of human space flight.” That study, which will provide recommendations for the period 2014 through 2023, is designed to be very broad, incorporating viewpoints from the scientific, commercial, and even national security communities.
At the Goddard Symposium, Olson said work on that study had yet to begin in earnest. The National Research Council’s board of governors recently reviewed and approved the “statement of task” for the project and submitted to NASA a detailed proposal for performing the study, he said. “It is focusing on the enduring questions, the rationale, the why,” he said of the upcoming study. “It is looking to be a fairly comprehensive activity, with several esteemed folks on panel.”
As currently planned, he added, the study would continue through the delivery of the committee’s final report in August 2014. That’s raised some concerns about just how effective such a study would be, especially if it calls for significant changes in how human spaceflight activities are carried out. By mid-2014 either the Obama Administration will be approaching its final two years in office and thus have little incentive to change course, or a new administration (if the eventual Republican nominee defeats Obama in this November’s election) will have already had the opportunity to put its own stamp on space policy.
In the meantime human spaceflight advocates will have to work to shore up their arguments for human space exploration, work on specific destinations, and refine their plans for carrying out proposed missions. Otherwise, in an environment where budget cuts, like the looming budget sequestration that could cut NASA’s budget by nearly ten percent unless counteracted by Congress, dominate the discussion, there will be plenty for space advocates to lose sleep about in the months to come.
On paper, at least, NASA’s human space exploration program has a clear direction in front of it. Two years ago this month, in a speech at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, President Barack Obama gave NASA its marching orders: a human mission to an asteroid by 2025, a human mission to orbit Mars by the mid-2030s, followed by a landing on the Red Planet without a specified date, but soon enough thereafter that the now-50-year-old Obama said, “I expect to be around to see it.”
That set of goals, and the work underway on what are likely to be two of the key, if controversial, building blocks of the architecture to achieve those goals—the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket and the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) spacecraft—give the appearance that NASA is moving full stream ahead on those exploration plans. Yet may feel uneasy about that plan, unconvinced that the goals and NASA’s implementation of that presidential direction are sustainable. In an era where a flat budget is considered a fiscal triumph, can NASA find a way to fit an ambitious exploration program within a tight budget, or else come up with a compelling case for such missions that can make the public and Congress willing to loosen their pursestrings a bit?
Exploration insomnia
One person who raises questions about NASA’s approach is Steve Squyres, the Cornell University planetary scientist who is the principal investigator of NASA’s Mars Exploration Rovers (MER) mission and serves as chairman of the NASA Advisory Council. Appearing at the American Astronautical Society’s Goddard Memorial Symposium last week in the Washington, DC, suburbs, Squyres devoted his plenary talk to what he said keeps him up at night.
Sqyures said he doesn’t worry much about the perennial problem of long-term programs over shorter-term political cycles. “Losing sleep over stuff like that is like losing sleep over death and taxes: you’re going to do it, but it’s not going to do you much good.”
Squyres said he didn’t lose sleep over many of the day-to-day issues that dominate space policy debate, like the current gap in US human spaceflight capability that requires NASA to purchase seats on Soyuz flights to the ISS. “The fact that we are reliant on a foreign partner to access space right now is unfortunate, but I actually don’t lose a lot of sleep over this,” he said. “This is a temporary aberration in how we get astronauts into space.”
Likewise, he seemed satisfied with several aspects of NASA’s plan, including the development of SLS and Orion, as well as the agency’s commercial crew initiative. “I’ve become a true believer on commercial crew,” he said. While human spaceflight isn’t easy, he said that after half a century we should be at the point where crew transportation “should be routine enough that we can safely turn it over to competent commercial enterprises” and let NASA focus on exploration beyond Earth orbit.
Even the challenge of trying to do long-term missions within a political framework that functions on much shorter timeframes doesn’t faze Squyres much. “These are things that I lose some sleep over,” he said, “but to be honest, it’s always been this way, and it’s going to continue to be this way. Losing sleep over stuff like that is like losing sleep over death and taxes: you’re going to do it, but it’s not going to do you much good.”
So what issues that can be addressed keep Squyres up at night? He said it’s the lack of identification of the “next piece”, the components and systems needed to carry out human missions to destinations beyond Earth. For a mission to the Moon, he said, that would be the lander; for missions to near-Earth asteroids, it’s the life support systems needed for the multi-month voyages to the asteroid and back. “This I do lose a little sleep over,” he said.
“I do feel that, in the absence of that missing piece, it is harder than we would like it to be to clearly articulate to our stakeholders and to our workforce what the agency is trying to achieve,” he said. “In the absence of that, it makes it harder to get the job done.”
If NASA had a straightforward statement of the goals of its human space exploration program, Squyres said, “it would be a lot easier for us to clearly articulate those goals and to make those decisions going forward.”
A related, and more fundamental, issue in Squyres’s eyes is the lack of a clear statement of requirements for human spaceflight. He noted that the Mars Exploration Rovers mission had a half-page “mission success statement” that described the high-level requirements for the mission. “It provided an incredibly clear, crisp definition of what it was we were trying to do,” he said. “It lent a crystalline clarity to every single decision we ever had to make.” While there were times in the mission’s development, he recalled, they wondered if they would be able to do the mission, “there was never a moment when any of us questioned what it was we were trying to do.”
NASA’s human spaceflight program, he argued, could benefit from something similar. “I believe that if our human spaceflight enterprise has a clearer definition, something along these lines,” he said, pointing to the MER statement projected on the screen, “of what it is that we were trying to achieve, it would be a lot easier for us to clearly articulate those goals and to make those decisions going forward.”
NASA has also received that message from Sqyures through the NASA Advisory Council. One of the recommendations the council gave to NASA last month, after its most recent meeting, was to select a specific destination for human exploration, as well as the interim steps towards that long-term destination, as soon as possible. “Given the budget reality and development time for new hardware and software… now is the time to pick a specific destination in order to focus the NASA, international agencies and contractor teams on a specific destination, such as Mars,” the council’s recommendation stated.
Roadmaps and studies
Some at NASA believe they have destinations and rationale for human spaceflight clearly in place. “Why are we doing this, and where are we going?” asked Dan Dumbacher, deputy associate administrator for exploration systems development at NASA, in a panel at the Goddard Memorial Symposium after Sqyures’s speech. “Why are we doing this? Well, it’s important. It matters to everything we do.” As for destinations, he said, “We are going to Mars. We are going to destinations between here and Mars: asteroids, the Moon, whatever it might be. But we are going places.”
Regarding destinations, another NASA official, John Olson, pointed out the work done by the International Space Exploration Coordination Group, a group of 14 space agencies, including NASA, that have worked together to develop potential “roadmaps” for human space exploration beyond Earth. Its report, released last September, identifies two specific paths, both eventually leading to Mars. The main difference is the first destination beyond Earth orbit: one is an “Asteroid Next” approach that would go a near Earth asteroid, followed by the Moon and eventually Mars; the “Moon Next” alternative would start with a human return to the Moon before going to an asteroid and then Mars. “These are the amalgam of the international thought” on space exploration architectures, Olson said.
“We’re looking at a lot of options,” Dumbacher said of potential mission concepts. “We have to make sure we go through the right analysis to ferret out what the problems might be.”
Yet, it would seem that only one of those approaches, Asteroid Next, would be compatible with current US national policy as articulated by President Obama in his KSC speech two years ago. Does this create the potential for conflict should other nations decide the Moon Next approach is preferable? Olson said no, noting that the roadmaps are nonbinding documents, and that US policy is still based on going to asteroids first as part of a multi-destination approach. “The bottom line is a sustainable and affordable effort to have humans explore beyond low Earth orbit,” he said.
Olson added that NASA is working on a “180-day report” directed by Congress in the agency’s 2012 appropriations bill to refine its exploration plans, including discussions of specific destinations and objectives of future human exploration missions. That report, he said, will be completed by the end of this month. Additional internal studies are refining those exploration plans, he noted.
“We’re looking at a lot of options,” Dumbacher said. “We have to make sure we go through the right analysis to ferret out what the problems might be, what the ‘unknown unknowns’ might be, and sort through, based on our best experience and our best knowledge, how we would technically implement some of these options.”
Others are putting their hopes on an upcoming study that has been likened to a decadal study for human spaceflight. The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 directed the space agency to contract with the National Academies in fiscal year 2012 for “a review of the goals, core capabilities, and direction of human space flight.” That study, which will provide recommendations for the period 2014 through 2023, is designed to be very broad, incorporating viewpoints from the scientific, commercial, and even national security communities.
At the Goddard Symposium, Olson said work on that study had yet to begin in earnest. The National Research Council’s board of governors recently reviewed and approved the “statement of task” for the project and submitted to NASA a detailed proposal for performing the study, he said. “It is focusing on the enduring questions, the rationale, the why,” he said of the upcoming study. “It is looking to be a fairly comprehensive activity, with several esteemed folks on panel.”
As currently planned, he added, the study would continue through the delivery of the committee’s final report in August 2014. That’s raised some concerns about just how effective such a study would be, especially if it calls for significant changes in how human spaceflight activities are carried out. By mid-2014 either the Obama Administration will be approaching its final two years in office and thus have little incentive to change course, or a new administration (if the eventual Republican nominee defeats Obama in this November’s election) will have already had the opportunity to put its own stamp on space policy.
In the meantime human spaceflight advocates will have to work to shore up their arguments for human space exploration, work on specific destinations, and refine their plans for carrying out proposed missions. Otherwise, in an environment where budget cuts, like the looming budget sequestration that could cut NASA’s budget by nearly ten percent unless counteracted by Congress, dominate the discussion, there will be plenty for space advocates to lose sleep about in the months to come.
60 Minutes highlights Obama's broken promise on space program, jobs. Paging Bill Nelson
From the Miami Herald: 60 Minutes highlights Obama's broken promise on space program, jobs. Paging Bill Nelson...
When then-presidential candidate Barack Obama came to the heart of the nation's space program, Brevard County, he promised that he'd protect space-industry jobs in the face of NASA budget cuts under President Bush. Obama namechecked one-time astronaut and current Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson as an ally in Congress to ensure it all got done.
Take a look around today, and you'll see the results didn't match Obama's rhetoric.
"Fifty years of liftoffs are becoming eight months of layoffs. Have a look around Brevard County. It's shrinking. Lots of people are moving away, taking businesses down with them," 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley intoned last night in a segment called "Hard Landing."
"The 7,000 layoffs at the space center triggered 7,000 more in the community. Unemployment has been close to 11 percent."
Pelley goes on to note that, in 2010, Obama cancelled NASA's Constellation program and "then, Congress dealt another blow, by cutting the funding for the Obama plan in half."
That's a sign this was a bipartisan deal. And it also goes to show that, despite the Republican talking point that government spending doesn't create jobs, it does. And its absence costs them.
The show features out-of-work space program casualties taking Obama to task. Politically speaking, Brevard County isn't a high priority for Democrats (the county backed McCain while Florida backed Obama). But Sen. Nelson has always counted on Brevard in his elections, and the job picture there could complicate that for him this election year -- regardless of how hard he fought for the space program.
Some excerpts from Obama's space speech in August 2008:
"When I was growing up, NASA inspired the world with achievements that we're still proud of...
"Today we have an administration that sets ambitious goals for NASA without giving NASA the support it needs to reach them. As a result, NASA's had to cut back on research, trim their program, which means that after the space shuttle shuts down in 2010, we're going to have to rely on Russian space craft to keep us into orbit.
"So let me be clear: we canot cede our leadership in space. That's why I'm going to close the gap, ensure that our space program doesn't suffer when the shuttle goes out of service. We may extend an additional shuttle launch. We're going to work with Bill Nelson to add at least one flight after 2010 by continuing to support NASA funding, by speeding the development of the shuttle's successor, by making sure that all those who work in the space industry in Florida do not lose their jobs when the shuttle is retired because we cant afford to lose their expertise. But more broadly, we need a real vision for the next stage of space exploration...."
When then-presidential candidate Barack Obama came to the heart of the nation's space program, Brevard County, he promised that he'd protect space-industry jobs in the face of NASA budget cuts under President Bush. Obama namechecked one-time astronaut and current Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson as an ally in Congress to ensure it all got done.
Take a look around today, and you'll see the results didn't match Obama's rhetoric.
"Fifty years of liftoffs are becoming eight months of layoffs. Have a look around Brevard County. It's shrinking. Lots of people are moving away, taking businesses down with them," 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley intoned last night in a segment called "Hard Landing."
"The 7,000 layoffs at the space center triggered 7,000 more in the community. Unemployment has been close to 11 percent."
Pelley goes on to note that, in 2010, Obama cancelled NASA's Constellation program and "then, Congress dealt another blow, by cutting the funding for the Obama plan in half."
That's a sign this was a bipartisan deal. And it also goes to show that, despite the Republican talking point that government spending doesn't create jobs, it does. And its absence costs them.
The show features out-of-work space program casualties taking Obama to task. Politically speaking, Brevard County isn't a high priority for Democrats (the county backed McCain while Florida backed Obama). But Sen. Nelson has always counted on Brevard in his elections, and the job picture there could complicate that for him this election year -- regardless of how hard he fought for the space program.
Some excerpts from Obama's space speech in August 2008:
"When I was growing up, NASA inspired the world with achievements that we're still proud of...
"Today we have an administration that sets ambitious goals for NASA without giving NASA the support it needs to reach them. As a result, NASA's had to cut back on research, trim their program, which means that after the space shuttle shuts down in 2010, we're going to have to rely on Russian space craft to keep us into orbit.
"So let me be clear: we canot cede our leadership in space. That's why I'm going to close the gap, ensure that our space program doesn't suffer when the shuttle goes out of service. We may extend an additional shuttle launch. We're going to work with Bill Nelson to add at least one flight after 2010 by continuing to support NASA funding, by speeding the development of the shuttle's successor, by making sure that all those who work in the space industry in Florida do not lose their jobs when the shuttle is retired because we cant afford to lose their expertise. But more broadly, we need a real vision for the next stage of space exploration...."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
